Plant Physiological Ecology 9780387783406, 9780387783413, 2008931587, 0387783407

Citation preview

Plant Physiological Ecology Second Edition

Hans Lambers Thijs L. Pons

F. Stuart Chapin III

Plant Physiological Ecology Second Edition

13

Hans Lambers The University of Western Australia Crawley, WA Australia [email protected]

F. Stuart Chapin III University of Alaska Fairbanks, AK USA [email protected]

Thijs L. Pons Utrecht University The Netherlands [email protected]

ISBN 978-0-387-78340-6 ISBN 978-0-387-78341-3 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-78341-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2008931587 # 2008 Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed on acid-free paper springer.com

Foreword to Second Edition

In the decade that has passed since the first edition of this book, the global environment has changed rapidly. Even the most steadfast ‘‘deny-ers’’ have come to accept that atmospheric CO2 enrichment and global warming pose serious challenges to life on Earth. Regrettably, this acceptance has been forced by calamitous events rather than by the long-standing, sober warnings of the scientific community. There seems to be growing belief that ‘‘technology’’ will save us from the worst consequences of a warmer planet and its wayward weather. This hope, that may in the end prove to be no more than wishful thinking, relates principally to the built environment and human affairs. Alternative sources of energy, utilized with greater efficiency, are at the heart of such hopes; even alternative ways of producing food or obtaining water may be possible. For plants, however, there is no alternative but to utilize sunlight and fix carbon and to draw water from the soil. (Under a given range of environmental conditions, these processes are already remarkably efficient by industrial standards.) Can we ‘‘technologize’’ our way out of the problems that plants may encounter in capricious, stormier, hotter, drier, or more saline environments? Climate change will not alter the basic nature of the stresses that plants must endure, but it will result in their occurrence in places where formerly their impact was small, thus exposing species and vegetation types to more intense episodes of stress than they are able to handle. The timescale on which the climate is changing is too fast to wait for evolution to come up with solutions to the problems. For a variety of reasons, the prospects for managing change seem better in agriculture than in forests or in wild plant communities. It is possible to intervene dramatically in the normal process of evolutionary change by genetic manipulation. Extensive screening of random mutations in a target species such as Arabidopsis thaliana can reveal genes that allow plants to survive rather simplified stress tests. This is but the first of many steps, but eventually these will have their impact, primarily on agricultural and industrial crops. There is a huge research effort in this area and much optimism about what can be achieved. Much of it is done with little reference to plant physiology or biochemistry and has a curiously empirical character. One can sense that there is impatience with plant physiology that has been too slow in defining stress tolerance, and a belief that if a gene can be found that confers tolerance, and it can be transferred to a species of interest, it is not of prime v

vi

Foreword to Second Edition

importance to know exactly what it does to the workings of the plant. Such a strategy is more directed toward outcomes than understanding, even though the technology involved is sophisticated. Is there a place for physiological ecology in the new order of things? The answer is perhaps a philosophical one. Progress over the centuries has depended on the gradual evolution of our understanding of fundamental truths about the universe and our world. Scientific discovery has always relished its serendipitous side but had we been satisfied simply with the outcomes of trial and error we would not be where we are today. It is legitimate to ask what factors set the limits on stress tolerance of a given species. To answer this one must know first how the plant ‘‘works’’; in general, most of this knowledge is to hand but is based on a relatively few model species that are usually chosen because of the ease with which they can be handled in laboratory conditions or because they are economically important. As well as describing the basic physiology of plants the authors of this book set out to answer more difficult questions about the differences between species with respect to environmental variables. The authors would be the first to admit that comprehensive studies of comparative physiology and biochemistry are relatively few. Only in a few instances do we really understand how a species, or in agriculture, a genotype, pulls off the trick of surviving or flourishing in conditions where other plants fail. Of course, the above has more than half an eye on feeding the increasing world population in the difficult times that lie ahead. This has to be every thinking person’s concern. There is, however, more to it than that. Large ecosystems interact with climate, the one affecting the other. It would be as rash, for example, to ignore the effects of climate change on forests as it would be to ignore its effects on crops. There is more to the successful exploitation of a given environment than can be explained exclusively in terms of a plant’s physiology. An important thrust in this book is the interaction, often crucial, between plants and beneficial, pathogenic or predatory organisms that share that environment. Manipulation of these interactions is the perennial concern of agriculture either directly or unintentionally. Changes in temperature and seasonality alter established relations between organisms, sometimes catastrophically when, for example, a pathogen or predator expands its area of influence into plant and animal populations that have not been exposed to it previously. Understanding such interactions may not necessarily allow us to avoid the worst consequences of change but it may increase our preparedness and our chances of coming up with mitigating strategies. DAVID T. CLARKSON Oak House Cheddar, UK January 2008

About the Authors

Hans Lambers is Professor of Plant Ecology and Head of School of Plant Biology at the University of Western Australia, in Perth, Australia. He did his undergraduate degree at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, followed by a PhD project on effects of hypoxia on flooding-sensitive and flooding-tolerant Senecio species at the same institution.

From 1979 to 1982, he worked as a postdoc at The University of Western Australia, Melbourne University, and the Australian National University in Australia, working on respiration and nitrogen metabolism. After a postdoc at his Alma Mater, he became Professor of Ecophysiology at Utrecht University, the Netherlands, in 1985, where he focused on plant respiration and the physiological basis of variation in relative growth rate among herbaceous plants. In 1998, he moved to the University of Western Australia, where he focuses on mineral nutrition and water relations, especially in species occurring on severely phosphorus-impoverished soils in a global biodiversity hotspot. He has been editor-in-chief of the journal Plant and Soil since 1992 and features on ISI’s list of highly cited authors in the field of animal and plant sciences since 2002. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2003. F. Stuart Chapin III is Professor of Ecology at the Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, USA. He did his undergraduate degree (BA) at Swarthmore College, PA, United States, and then was a Visiting Instructor in Biology (Peace Corps) at Universidad Javeriana, Bogota, Columbia, from 1966 to 1968. After that, he worked toward his PhD, on temperature compensation in phosphate absorption along a latitudinal gradient at Stanford University, United States. He started at the University of Alaska Fairbanks in 1973, focusing on plant mineral nutrition, and was Professor at this vii

viii

institution from 1984 till 1989. In 1989, he became Professor of Integrative Biology, University of California, Berkeley, USA. He returned to Alaska in 1996. His current main research focus is on effects of global change on vegetation, especially in arctic environments. He features on ISI’s list of highly cited authors in ecology/environment, and was elected Member of the National Academy of Sciences, USA in 2004. Thijs L. Pons recently retired as Senior Lecturer in Plant Ecophysiology at the Institute of Environmental Biology, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He did his undergraduate degree at Utrecht University, the Netherlands, where he also worked toward his PhD, on a project on shade-tolerant and shade-avoiding species. He worked in Bogor, Indonesia, from 1976 to 1979, on the biology of weeds in

About the Authors

rice. Back at Utrecht University, he worked on the ecophysiology of seed dormancy and germination. From the late 1980s onward he focused on photosynthetic acclimation, including environmental signaling in canopies. He spent a sabbatical at the University of California, Davis, USA, working with Bob Pearcy on effects of sunflecks. His interest in photosynthetic acclimation was expanded to tropical rainforest canopies when he became involved in a project on the scientific basis of sustainable forest management in Guyana, from 1992 to 2000. He is associate editor for the journal Plant Ecology.

Foreword to First Edition

The individual is engaged in a struggle for existence (Darwin). That struggle may be of two kinds: The acquisition of the resources needed for establishment and growth from a sometimes hostile and meager environment and the struggle with competing neighbors of the same or different species. In some ways, we can define physiology and ecology in terms of these two kinds of struggles. Plant ecology, or plant sociology, is centered on the relationships and interactions of species within communities and the way in which populations of a species are adapted to a characteristic range of environments. Plant physiology is mostly concerned with the individual and its struggle with its environment. At the outset of this book, the authors give their definition of ecophysiology, arriving at the conclusion that it is a point of view about physiology. A point of view that is informed, perhaps, by knowledge of the real world outside the laboratory window. A world in which, shall we say, the light intensity is much greater than the 200–500 mmol photons m 2 s 1 used in too many environment chambers, and one in which a constant 208C day and night is a great rarity. The standard conditions used in the laboratory are usually regarded as treatments. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this in principle; one always needs a baseline when making comparisons. The idea, however, that the laboratory control is the norm is false and can lead to misunderstanding and poor predictions of behavior. The environment from which many plants must acquire resources is undergoing change and degradation, largely as a result of human activities and the relentless increase in population. This has thrown the spotlight onto the way in which these changes may feed back on human well-being. Politicians and the general public ask searching questions of biologists, agriculturalists, and foresters concerning the future of our food supplies, building materials, and recreational amenities. The questions take on the general form, ‘‘Can you predict how ‘X’ will change when environmental variables ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ change?’’ The recent experience of experimentation, done at high public expense, on CO2 enrichment and global warming, is a sobering reminder that not enough is known about the underlying physiology and biochemistry of plant growth and metabolism to make the confident predictions that the customers want to hear. Even at the level of individual plants, there seems to be no clear prediction, beyond that the response depends on species and other illdefined circumstances. On the broader scale, predictions about the response of ix

x

Foreword to First Edition

plant communities are even harder to make. In the public mind, at least, this is a failure. The only way forward is to increase our understanding of plant metabolism, of the mechanisms of resource capture, and the way in which the captured resources are allocated to growth or storage in the plant. To this extent, I can see no distinction between plant physiology and ecophysiology. There are large numbers of missing pieces of information about plant physiology—period. The approach of the new millennium, then, is a good time to recognize the need to study plant physiology anew, bringing to bear the impressive new tools made available by gene cloning and recombinant DNA technology. This book is to be welcomed if it will encourage ecologists to come to grips with the processes which determine the behavior of ‘‘X’’ and encourage biochemistry and physiology students to take a more realistic view of the environmental variables ‘‘Y’’ and ‘‘Z’’. The book starts, appropriately, with the capture of carbon from the atmosphere. Photosynthesis is obviously the basis of life on earth, and some of the most brilliant plant scientists have made it their life’s work. As a result, we know more about the molecular biophysics and biochemistry of photosynthesis than we do about any other plant process. The influence of virtually every environmental variable on the physiology of photosynthesis and its regulation has been studied. Photosynthesis, however, occurs in an environment over which the individual plant has little control. In broad terms, a plant must cope with the range of temperature, rainfall, light intensity, and CO2 concentration to which its habitat is subjected. It cannot change these things. It must rely on its flexible physiological response to mitigate the effects of the environment. At a later stage in the book, the focus shifts below ground, where the plant has rather more control over its options for capturing resources. It may alter the environment around its roots in order to improve the nutrient supply. It may benefit from microbial assistance in mobilizing resources or enter into more formal contracts with soil fungi and nodule-forming bacteria to acquire nutrient resources that would otherwise be unavailable or beyond its reach. Toward its close, the book turns to such interactions between plants and microbes and to the chemical strategies that have evolved in plants that assist them in their struggles with one another and against browsing and grazing animals. The authors end, then, on a firmly ecological note, and introduce phenomena that most laboratory physiologists have never attempted to explore. These intriguing matters remind us, as if reminders were needed, of ‘‘how little we know, how much to discover’’ (Springer and Leigh). DAVID T. CLARKSON IACR-Long Ashton Research Station University of Bristol April 1997

Acknowledgments

Numerous people have contributed to the text and illustrations in this book by commenting on sections and chapters, providing photographic material, making electronic files of graphs and illustrations available, or drawing numerous figures. In addition to those who wrote book reviews or sent us specific comments on the first edition of Plant Physiological Ecology, we wish to thank the following colleagues, in alphabetical order, for their valuable input: Owen Atkin, Juan Barcelo, Wilhelm Barthlott, Carl Bernacchi, William Bond, Elizabeth Bray, Siegmar Breckle, Mark Brundrett, Steve Burgess, Ray Callaway, Marion Cambridge, Art Cameron, Pilar Castro-Dı´ez, David Clarkson, Stephan Clemens, Herve Cochard, Tim Colmer, Hans Cornelissen, Marjolein Cox, Michael Cramer, Doug Darnowski, Manny Delhaize, Kingsley Dixon, John Evans, Tatsuhiro Ezawa, Jaume Flexas, Brian Forde, Peter Franks, Oula Ghannoum, Alasdair Grigg, Foteini Hassiotou, Xinhua He, Martin Heil, Angela Hodge, Richard Houghton, Rick Karban, Herbert Kronzucker, John Kuo, Jon Lloyd, Jian Feng Ma, Ken Marcum, Bjorn Martin, Justin McDonald, John Milburn, Ian Max Møller, Liesje Mommer, Ulo Niinemets, Ko Noguchi, Ram Oren, Stuart Pearse, Carol Peterson, Larry Peterson, John Pickett, ´ Corne´ Pieterse, Bartosz Płachno, Malcolm Press, Dean Price, Miquel Ribas-Carbo, Peter Reich, Sarah Richardson, Peter Ryser, Yuzou Sano, Rany Schnell, Ted Schuur, Tim Setter, Michael Shane, Tom Sharkey, Sally Smith, Janet Sprent, Ernst Steudle, Youshi Tazoe, Mark Tjoelker, Robert Turgeon, David Turner, Kevin Vessey, Eric Visser, Rens Voesenek, Xianzhong Wang, Jennifer Watling, Mark Westoby, Wataru Yamori, Satoshi Yano, and Wenhao Zhang. Finally HL wishes to thank Miquel and Pepi for their fabulous hospitality when he was dealing with the final stages of the revision of the text. Good company, music, food, and wine in Palma de Mallorca significantly added to the final product. HANS LAMBERS F. STUART CHAPIN III THIJS L. PONS

xi

Abbreviations

a A An Af Amax As ABA ADP AM AMP APAR ATP b B cs C C3 C4 Ca Cc Ci Cli Cmin C:N CAM CC CE chl CPF d D De DHAP DM

radius of a root (ag) or root plus root hairs (ae) rate of CO2 assimilation; also total root surface net rate of CO2 assimilation foliage area light-saturated rate of net CO2 assimilation at ambient Ca sapwood area abscisic acid adenosine diphosphate arbuscular mycorrhiza adenosine monophosphate absorbed photosynthetically active radiation adenosine triphosphate individual plant biomass; buffer power of the soil stand biomass concentration of the solute nutrient concentration in solution; also convective heat transfer photosynthetic pathway in which the first product of CO2 fixation is a 3-carbon intermediate photosynthetic pathway in which the first product of CO2 fixation is a 4-carbon intermediate Atmospheric CO2 concentration CO2 concentration in the chloroplast Intercellular CO2 concentration initial nutrient concentration solution concentration at which uptake is zero carbon:nitrogen ratio crassulacean acid metabolism carbon concentration carbohydrate equivalent chlorophyll carbon dioxide production value plant density; also leaf dimension diffusivity of soil water diffusion coefficient of ion in soil dihydroxyacetone phosphate dry mass

xiii

xiv DNA e E f F FAD(H2) FM FR g

GA GE GOGAT HCH HIR I Imax IAA IRs J Jmax Jv k K kcat Ki Km l L Lp LAI LAR LFR LHC LMA LMR LR

mRNA miRNA M ME MRT Nw NAD(P) NAD(P)H NAR NDVI NEP NIR NMR NPP NPQ NUE

Abbreviations deoxyribonucleic acid water vapor pressure in the leaf (ei; or el in Sect. 2.5 of the Chapter 4A) or atmosphere (ea); also emissivity of a surface transpiration rate tortuosity rate of nutrient supply to the root surface; also chlorophyll fluorescence, minimal fluorescence (F0), maximum (Fm), in a pulse of saturating light (Fm’), variable (Fv) flavine adenine dinonucleotide (reduced form) fresh mass far-red diffusive conductance for CO2 (gc) and water vapor (gw); boundary layer conductance (ga); mesophyll conductance (gm); stomatal conductance (gs); boundary layer conductance for heat transport (gah) gibberellic acid glucose equivalent glutamine 2-oxoglutarate aminotransferase hydroxycyclohexenone high-irradiance response irradiance, above (Io) or beneath (I) a canopy; irradiance absorbed; also nutrient inflow maximum rate of nutrient inflow indoleacetic acid short-wave infrared radiation rate of photosynthetic electron flow maximum rate of photosynthetic electron flow measured at saturating I and Ca water flow rate of root elongation; extinction coefficient for light carrying capacity (e.g., K species) catalytic constant of an enzyme inhibitor concentration giving half-maximum inhibition substrate concentration at half Vmax (or Imax) leaf area index rooting density; also latent heat of evaporation; also length of xylem element root hydraulic conductance leaf area index leaf area ratio low-fluence response light-harvesting complex leaf mass per unit area leaf mass ratio long-wave infrared radiation that is incident (LRin), reflected (LRr), emitted (LRem), absorbed (SRabs), or net incoming (LRnet); also leaf respiration on an area (LRa) and mass (LRm) basis messenger ribonucleic acid micro ribonucleic acid energy dissipated by metabolic processes malic enzyme mean residence time mol fraction, that is, the number of moles of water divided by the total number of moles nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide(phosphate) (in its oxidized form) nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide(phosphate) (in its reduced form) net assimilation rate normalized difference vegetation index net ecosystem production near-infrared reflectance; net rate of ion uptake nuclear magnetic resonance net primary production nonphotochemical quenching nitrogen-use efficiency, or nutrient-use efficiency

Abbreviations p po P Pfr Pi Pr PAR PC PEP PEPC PEPCK pH PGA pmf PNC PNUE PQ PR PS PV’ qN qP Q Q10 QA r

ri ro R R Ra Rd Rday Re Rp Rh R* RGR RH RMR RNA RQ RR RuBP Rubisco RWC S Sc/o SHAM SLA SMR SR

SRL

xv vapor pressure vapor pressure of air above pure water atmospheric pressure; also turgor pressure far-red-absorbing configuration of phytochrome inorganic phosphate red-absorbing configuration of phytochrome photosynthetically active radiation phytochelatins phosphoenolpyruvate phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase hydrogen ion activity; negative logarithm of the H+ concentration phosphoglycerate proton-motive force plant nitrogen concentration photosynthetic nitrogen-use efficiency photosynthetic quotient; also plastoquinone pathogenesis-related protein photosystem amount of product produced per gram of substrate quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence due to non-photochemical processes photochemical quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence ubiquinone (in mitochondria), in reduced state (Qr = ubiquinol) or total quantity (Qt); also quinone (in chloroplast) temperature coefficient primary electron acceptor in photosynthesis diffusive resistance, for CO2 (rc), for water vapor (rw), boundary layer resistance (ra), stomatal resistance (rs), mesophyll resistance (rm); also radial distance from the root axis; also respiration; also growth rate (in volume) in the Lockhart equation; also proportional root elongation; also intrinsic rate of population increase (e.g., r species) spacing between roots root diameter red radius of a xylem element; also universal gas constant molar abundance ratio of 13C/12C in the atmosphere dark respiration dark respiration during photosynthesis ecosystem respiration whole-plant respiration; also molar abundance ratio of 13C/12C in plants heterotrophic respiration minimal resource level utilised by a species relative growth rate relative humidity of the air root mass ratio ribonucleic acid respiratory quotient rate of root respiration ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase relative water content nutrient uptake by roots specificity of carboxylation relative to oxygenation by Rubisco salicylichydroxamic acid specific leaf area stem mass ratio short-wave solar radiation that is incident (SRin), reflected (SRr), transmitted (SRtr), absorbed (SRabs), used in photosynthesis (SRA), emitted in fluorescence (SRFL), or net incoming (SRnet); also rate of stem respiration specific root length

xvi t* tRNA T TL TCA TR u UV V Vc Vo Vcmax Vwo VIS VLFR Vmax VPD w WUE Y g * 

T    l mw mwo  

air m p p

Abbreviations time constant transfer ribonucleic acid temperature leaf temperature tricarboxylic acid total radiation that is absorbed (TRabs) or net incoming (TRnet) wind speed ultraviolet volume rate of carboxylation rate of oxygenation maximum rate of carboxylation molar volume of water visible reflectance very low fluence response substrate-saturated enzyme activity vapor pressure deficit mole fraction of water vapor in the leaf (wi) or atmosphere (wa) water-use efficiency yield threshold (in the Lockhart equation) surface tension CO2-compensation point CO2-compensation point in the absence of dark respiration boundary layer thickness; also isotopic content isotopic discrimination temperature difference elastic modulus; also emissivity viscosity constant curvature of the irradiance response curve; also volumetric moisture content (mean value, ’, or at the root surface, a) energy required for transpiration chemical potential of water chemical potential of pure water under standard conditions Stefan–Boltzman constant quantum yield (of photosynthesis); also yield coefficient (in the Lockhart equation); also leakage of CO2 from the bundle sheath to the mesophyll; also relative yield of de-excitation processes water potential water potential of the air matric potential pressure potential; hydrostatic pressure osmotic potential

Contents

Foreword to Second Edition (by David T. Clarkson) About the Authors Foreword to First Edition (by David T. Clarkson) Acknowledgments Abbreviations

1.

2.

v vii ix xi xiii

Assumptions and Approaches

1

Introduction7History, Assumptions, and Approaches 1 What Is Ecophysiology? 2 The Roots of Ecophysiology 3 Physiological Ecology and the Distribution of Organisms 4 Time Scale of Plant Response to Environment 5 Conceptual and Experimental Approaches 6 New Directions in Ecophysiology 7 The Structure of the Book References

1 1 1 2 4 6 7 7 8

Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

11

2A. Photosynthesis

11 11 11 11 12 13

1 Introduction 2 General Characteristics of the Photosynthetic Apparatus 2.1 The ‘‘Light’’ and ‘‘Dark’’ Reactions of Photosynthesis 2.1.1 Absorption of Photons 2.1.2 Fate of the Excited Chlorophyll 2.1.3 Membrane-Bound Photosynthetic Electron Transport and Bioenergetics 2.1.4 Photosynthetic Carbon Reduction 2.1.5 Oxygenation and Photorespiration

14 14 15 xvii

xviii

Contents

3

4

5

6

7

8 9

2.2 Supply and Demand of CO2 in the Photosynthetic Process 2.2.1 Demand for CO27the CO27Response Curve 2.2.2 Supply of CO27Stomatal and Boundary Layer Conductances 2.2.3 The Mesophyll Conductance Response of Photosynthesis to Light 3.1 The Light Climate Under a Leaf Canopy 3.2 Physiological, Biochemical, and Anatomical Differences Between Sun and Shade Leaves 3.2.1 The Light-Response Curve of Sun and Shade Leaves 3.2.2 Anatomy and Ultrastructure of Sun and Shade Leaves 3.2.3 Biochemical Differences Between Shade and Sun Leaves 3.2.4 The Light-Response Curve of Sun and Shade Leaves Revisited 3.2.5 The Regulation of Acclimation 3.3 Effects of Excess Irradiance 3.3.1 Photoinhibition7Protection by Carotenoids of the Xanthophyll Cycle 3.3.2 Chloroplast Movement in Response to Changes in Irradiance 3.4 Responses to Variable Irradiance 3.4.1 Photosynthetic Induction 3.4.2 Light Activation of Rubisco 3.4.3 Post-illumination CO2 Assimilation and SunfleckUtilization Efficiency 3.4.4 Metabolite Pools in Sun and Shade Leaves 3.4.5 Net Effect of Sunflecks on Carbon Gain and Growth Partitioning of the Products of Photosynthesis and Regulation by ‘‘Feedback’’ 4.1 Partitioning Within the Cell 4.2 Short-Term Regulation of Photosynthetic Rate by Feedback 4.3 Sugar-Induced Repression of Genes Encoding Calvin-Cycle Enzymes 4.4 Ecological Impacts Mediated by Source-Sink Interactions Responses to Availability of Water 5.1 Regulation of Stomatal Opening 5.2 The A–Cc Curve as Affected by Water Stress 5.3 Carbon-Isotope Fractionation in Relation to Water-Use Efficiency 5.4 Other Sources of Variation in Carbon-Isotope Ratios in C3 Plants Effects of Soil Nutrient Supply on Photosynthesis 6.1 The Photosynthesis–Nitrogen Relationship 6.2 Interactions of Nitrogen, Light, and Water 6.3 Photosynthesis, Nitrogen, and Leaf Life Span Photosynthesis and Leaf Temperature: Effects and Adaptations 7.1 Effects of High Temperatures on Photosynthesis 7.2 Effects of Low Temperatures on Photosynthesis Effects of Air Pollutants on Photosynthesis C4 Plants 9.1 Introduction 9.2 Biochemical and Anatomical Aspects

16 16 21 22 26 26 27 27 29 32 33 35 36 36 41 42 43 43 45 45 47 47 47 48 51 51 51 53 54 56 57 58 58 59 59 60 60 61 63 64 64 64

Contents

xix 9.3

Intercellular and Intracellular Transport of Metabolites of the C4 Pathway 9.4 Photosynthetic Efficiency and Performance at High and Low Temperatures 9.5 C3–C4 Intermediates 9.6 Evolution and Distribution of C4 Species 9.7 Carbon-Isotope Composition of C4 Species 10 CAM Plants 10.1 Introduction 10.2 Physiological, Biochemical, and Anatomical Aspects 10.3 Water-Use Efficiency 10.4 Incomplete and Facultative CAM Plants 10.5 Distribution and Habitat of CAM Species 10.6 Carbon-Isotope Composition of CAM Species 11 Specialized Mechanisms Associated with Photosynthetic Carbon Acquisition in Aquatic Plants 11.1 Introduction 11.2 The CO2 Supply in Water 11.3 The Use of Bicarbonate by Aquatic Macrophytes 11.4 The Use of CO2 from the Sediment 11.5 Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM) in Aquatic Plants 11.6 Carbon-Isotope Composition of Aquatic Plants 11.7 The Role of Aquatic Macrophytes in Carbonate Sedimentation 12 Effects of the Rising CO2 Concentration in the Atmosphere 12.1 Acclimation of Photosynthesis to Elevated CO2 Concentrations 12.2 Effects of Elevated CO2 on Transpiration7Differential Effects on C3, C4, and CAM Plants 13 Summary: What Can We Gain from Basic Principles and Rates of Single-Leaf Photosynthesis? References

2B. Respiration 1 Introduction 2 General Characteristics of the Respiratory System 2.1 The Respiratory Quotient 2.2 Glycolysis, the Pentose Phosphate Pathway, and the Tricarboxylic (TCA) Cycle 2.3 Mitochondrial Metabolism 2.3.1 The Complexes of the Electron-Transport Chain 2.3.2 A Cyanide-Resistant Terminal Oxidase 2.3.3 Substrates, Inhibitors, and Uncouplers 2.3.4 Respiratory Control 2.4 A Summary of the Major Points of Control of Plant Respiration 2.5 ATP Production in Isolated Mitochondria and In Vivo 2.5.1 Oxidative Phosphorylation: The Chemiosmotic Model 2.5.2 ATP Production In Vivo 2.6 Regulation of Electron Transport via the Cytochrome and the Alternative Paths 2.6.1 Competition or Overflow? 2.6.2 The Intricate Regulation of the Alternative Oxidase

67 68 71 73 75 75 75 76 79 79 80 81 82 82 82 83 84 85 85 85 87 89 90 90 91 101 101 101 101 103 103 104 105 105 106 107 107 107 107 109 109 110

xx

Contents 2.6.3 Mitochondrial NAD(P)H Dehydrogenases That Are Not Linked to Proton Extrusion 3 The Ecophysiological Function of the Alternative Path 3.1 Heat Production 3.2 Can We Really Measure the Activity of the Alternative Path? 3.3 The Alternative Path as an Energy Overflow 3.4 NADH Oxidation in the Presence of a High Energy Charge 3.5 NADH Oxidation to Oxidize Excess Redox Equivalents from the Chloroplast 3.6 Continuation of Respiration When the Activity of the Cytochrome Path Is Restricted 3.7 A Summary of the Various Ecophysiological Roles of the Alternative Oxidase 4 Environmental Effects on Respiratory Processes 4.1 Flooded, Hypoxic, and Anoxic Soils 4.1.1 Inhibition of Aerobic Root Respiration 4.1.2 Fermentation 4.1.3 Cytosolic Acidosis 4.1.4 Avoiding Hypoxia: Aerenchyma Formation 4.2 Salinity and Water Stress 4.3 Nutrient Supply 4.4 Irradiance 4.5 Temperature 4.6 Low pH and High Aluminum Concentrations 4.7 Partial Pressures of CO2 4.8 Effects of Plant Pathogens 4.9 Leaf Dark Respiration as Affected by Photosynthesis 5 The Role of Respiration in Plant Carbon Balance 5.1 Carbon Balance 5.1.1 Root Respiration 5.1.2 Respiration of Other Plant Parts 5.2 Respiration Associated with Growth, Maintenance, and Ion Uptake 5.2.1 Maintenance Respiration 5.2.2 Growth Respiration 5.2.3 Respiration Associated with Ion Transport 5.2.4 Experimental Evidence 6 Plant Respiration: Why Should It Concern Us from an Ecological Point of View? References

2C. Long-Distance Transport of Assimilates 1 Introduction 2 Major Transport Compounds in the Phloem: Why Not Glucose? 3 Phloem Structure and Function 3.1 Symplastic and Apoplastic Transport 3.2 Minor Vein Anatomy 3.3 Sugar Transport against a Concentration Gradient 4 Evolution and Ecology of Phloem Loading Mechanisms 5 Phloem Unloading 6 The Transport Problems of Climbing Plants 7 Phloem Transport: Where to Move from Here? References

112 112 112 113 114 117 117 118 118 119 119 119 119 120 121 122 123 123 127 129 130 131 132 132 132 132 133 134 134 136 140 140 143 144 151 151 151 153 154 154 155 157 157 160 161 161

Contents

xxi

3.

Plant Water Relations 1 Introduction 1.1 The Role of Water in Plant Functioning 1.2 Transpiration as an Inevitable Consequence of Photosynthesis 2 Water Potential 3 Water Availability in Soil 3.1 The Field Capacity of Different Soils 3.2 Water Movement Toward the Roots 3.3 Rooting Profiles as Dependent on Soil Moisture Content 3.4 Roots Sense Moisture Gradients and Grow Toward Moist Patches 4 Water Relations of Cells 4.1 Osmotic Adjustment 4.2 Cell-Wall Elasticity 4.3 Osmotic and Elastic Adjustment as Alternative Strategies 4.4 Evolutionary Aspects 5 Water Movement Through Plants 5.1 The Soil–Plant–Air Continuum 5.2 Water in Roots 5.3 Water in Stems 5.3.1 Can We Measure Negative Xylem Pressures? 5.3.2 The Flow of Water in the Xylem 5.3.3 Cavitation or Embolism: The Breakage of the Xylem Water Column 5.3.4 Can Embolized Conduits Resume Their Function? 5.3.5 Trade-off Between Conductance and Safety 5.3.6 Transport Capacity of the Xylem and Leaf Area 5.3.7 Storage of Water in Stems 5.4 Water in Leaves and Water Loss from Leaves 5.4.1 Effects of Soil Drying on Leaf Conductance 5.4.2 The Control of Stomatal Movements and Stomatal Conductance 5.4.3 Effects of Vapor Pressure Difference or Transpiration Rate on Stomatal Conductance 5.4.4 Effects of Irradiance and CO2 on Stomatal Conductance 5.4.5 The Cuticular Conductance and the Boundary Layer Conductance 5.4.6 Stomatal Control: A Compromise Between Carbon Gain and Water Loss 6 Water-Use Efficiency 6.1 Water-Use Efficiency and Carbon-Isotope Discrimination 6.2 Leaf Traits That Affect Leaf Temperature and Leaf Water Loss 6.3 Water Storage in Leaves 7 Water Availability and Growth 8 Adaptations to Drought 8.1 Desiccation Avoidance: Annuals and Drought-Deciduous Species 8.2 Dessication Tolerance: Evergreen Shrubs 8.3 Resurrection Plants 9 Winter Water Relations and Freezing Tolerance 10 Salt Tolerance 11 Final Remarks: The Message That Transpires References

163 163 163 164 165 165 169 170 171 173 174 175 175 177 178 178 178 179 183 185 186 188 191 192 194 195 196 196 199 201 203 203 204 206 206 207 209 210 211 211 212 212 214 216 216 217

xxii

4.

Contents

Leaf Energy Budgets: Effects of Radiation and Temperature

225

4A. The Plant’s Energy Balance 1 Introduction 2 Energy Inputs and Outputs 2.1 Short Overview of a Leaf’s Energy Balance 2.2 Short-Wave Solar Radiation 2.3 Long-Wave Terrestrial Radiation 2.4 Convective Heat Transfer 2.5 Evaporative Energy Exchange 2.6 Metabolic Heat Generation 3 Modeling the Effect of Components of the Energy Balance on Leaf Temperature 4 A Summary of Hot and Cool Topics References

225 225 225 226 229 230 232 234 234 235 235

4B. Effects of Radiation and Temperature 1 Introduction 2 Radiation 2.1 Effects of Excess Irradiance 2.2 Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation 2.2.1 Damage by UV 2.2.2 Protection Against UV: Repair or Prevention 3 Effects of Extreme Temperatures 3.1 How Do Plants Avoid Damage by Free Radicals at Low Temperature? 3.2 Heat-Shock Proteins 3.3 Are Isoprene and Monoterpene Emissions an Adaptation to High Temperatures? 3.4 Chilling Injury and Chilling Tolerance 3.5 Carbohydrates and Proteins Conferring Frost Tolerance 4 Global Change and Future Crops References

5.

6.

237 237 237 237 238 238 239 239 241 241 242 243 244 244

Scaling-Up Gas Exchange and Energy Balance from the Leaf to the Canopy Level

247

1 Introduction 2 Canopy Water Use 3 Canopy CO2 Fluxes 4 Canopy Water-Use Efficiency 5 Canopy Effects on Microclimate: A Case Study 6 Aiming for a Higher Level References

247 247 251 252 253 253 253

Mineral Nutrition

255

1 Introduction 2 Acquisition of Nutrients 2.1 Nutrients in the Soil 2.1.1 Nutrient Availability as Dependent on Soil Age

255 255 255 255

Contents

xxiii 2.1.2 Nutrient Supply Rate 2.1.3 Nutrient Movement to the Root Surface 2.2 Root Traits That Determine Nutrient Acquisition 2.2.1 Increasing the Roots’ Absorptive Surface 2.2.2 Transport Proteins: Ion Channels and Carriers 2.2.3 Acclimation and Adaptation of Uptake Kinetics 2.2.4 Acquisition of Nitrogen 2.2.5 Acquisition of Phosphorus 2.2.6 Changing the Chemistry in the Rhizosphere 2.2.7 Rhizosphere Mineralization 2.2.8 Root Proliferation in Nutrient-Rich Patches: Is It Adaptive? 2.3 Sensitivity Analysis of Parameters Involved in Phosphate Acquisition 3 Nutrient Acquisition from ‘‘Toxic’’ or ‘‘Extreme’’ Soils 3.1 Acid Soils 3.1.1 Aluminum Toxicity 3.1.2 Alleviation of the Toxicity Symptoms by Soil Amendment 3.1.3 Aluminum Resistance 3.2 Calcareous Soils 3.3 Soils with High Levels of Heavy Metals 3.3.1 Why Are the Concentrations of Heavy Metals in Soil High? 3.3.2 Using Plants to Clean or Extract Polluted Water and Soil: Phytoremediation and Phytomining 3.3.3 Why Are Heavy Metals So Toxic to Plants? 3.3.4 Heavy-Metal-Resistant Plants 3.3.5 Biomass Production of Sensitive and Resistant Plants 3.4 Saline Soils: An Ever-Increasing Problem in Agriculture 3.4.1 Glycophytes and Halophytes 3.4.2 Energy-Dependent Salt Exclusion from Roots 3.4.3 Energy-Dependent Salt Exclusion from the Xylem 3.4.4 Transport of Naþ from the Leaves to the Roots and Excretion via Salt Glands 3.4.5 Compartmentation of Salt Within the Cell and Accumulation of Compatible Solutes 3.5 Flooded Soils 4 Plant Nutrient-Use Efficiency 4.1 Variation in Nutrient Concentration 4.1.1 Tissue Nutrient Concentration 4.1.2 Tissue Nutrient Requirement 4.2 Nutrient Productivity and Mean Residence Time 4.2.1 Nutrient Productivity 4.2.2 The Mean Residence Time of Nutrients in the Plant 4.3 Nutrient Loss from Plants 4.3.1 Leaching Loss 4.3.2 Nutrient Loss by Senescence 4.4 Ecosystem Nutrient-Use Efficiency 5 Mineral Nutrition: A Vast Array of Adaptations and Acclimations References

257 259 262 262 263 265 269 270 275 279 280 282 284 284 284 287 287 288 289 289 290 291 291 296 296 297 297 298 298 301 301 302 302 302 303 304 304 304 306 306 307 308 310 310

xxiv

7.

Contents

Growth and Allocation

321

1 Introduction: What Is Growth? 2 Growth of Whole Plants and Individual Organs 2.1 Growth of Whole Plants 2.1.1 A High Leaf Area Ratio Enables Plants to Grow Fast 2.1.2 Plants with High Nutrient Concentrations Can Grow Faster 2.2 Growth of Cells 2.2.1 Cell Division and Cell Expansion: The Lockhart Equation 2.2.2 Cell-Wall Acidification and Removal of Calcium Reduce Cell-Wall Rigidity 2.2.3 Cell Expansion in Meristems Is Controlled by Cell-Wall Extensibility and Not by Turgor 2.2.4 The Physical and Biochemical Basis of Yield Threshold and Cell-Wall Yield Coefficient 2.2.5 The Importance of Meristem Size 3 The Physiological Basis of Variation in RGR7Plants Grown with Free Access to Nutrients 3.1 SLA Is a Major Factor Associated with Variation in RGR 3.2 Leaf Thickness and Leaf Mass Density 3.3 Anatomical and Chemical Differences Associated with Leaf Mass Density 3.4 Net Assimilation Rate, Photosynthesis, and Respiration 3.5 RGR and the Rate of Leaf Elongation and Leaf Appearance 3.6 RGR and Activities per Unit Mass 3.7 RGR and Suites of Plant Traits 4 Allocation to Storage 4.1 The Concept of Storage 4.2 Chemical Forms of Stores 4.3 Storage and Remobilization in Annuals 4.4 The Storage Strategy of Biennials 4.5 Storage in Perennials 4.6 Costs of Growth and Storage: Optimization 5 Environmental Influences 5.1 Growth as Affected by Irradiance 5.1.1 Growth in Shade 5.1.2 Effects of the Photoperiod 5.2 Growth as Affected by Temperature 5.2.1 Effects of Low Temperature on Root Functioning 5.2.2 Changes in the Allocation Pattern 5.3 Growth as Affected by Soil Water Potential and Salinity 5.3.1 Do Roots Sense Dry Soil and Then Send Signals to the Leaves? 5.3.2 ABA and Leaf Cell-Wall Stiffening 5.3.3 Effects on Root Elongation 5.3.4 A Hypothetical Model That Accounts for Effects of Water Stress on Biomass Allocation 5.4 Growth at a Limiting Nutrient Supply 5.4.1 Cycling of Nitrogen Between Roots and Leaves 5.4.2 Hormonal Signals That Travel via the Xylem to the Leaves 5.4.3 Signals That Travel from the Leaves to the Roots 5.4.4 Integrating Signals from the Leaves and the Roots

321 321 322 322 322 323 323 324 327 328 328 328 330 332 332 333 333 334 334 335 336 337 337 338 338 340 340 341 341 345 346 346 346 347 348 348 348 349 349 349 350 351 351

Contents

xxv 5.4.5

Effects of Nitrogen Supply on Leaf Anatomy and Chemistry 5.4.6 Nitrogen Allocation to Different Leaves, as Dependent on Incident Irradiance 5.5 Plant Growth as Affected by Soil Compaction 5.5.1 Effects on Biomass Allocation: Is ABA Involved? 5.5.2 Changes in Root Length and Diameter: A Modification of the Lockhart Equation 5.6 Growth as Affected by Soil Flooding 5.6.1 The Pivotal Role of Ethylene 5.6.2 Effects on Water Uptake and Leaf Growth 5.6.3 Effects on Adventitious Root Formation 5.6.4 Effects on Radial Oxygen Loss 5.7 Growth as Affected by Submergence 5.7.1 Gas Exchange 5.7.2 Perception of Submergence and Regulation of Shoot Elongation 5.8 Growth as Affected by Touch and Wind 5.9 Growth as Affected by Elevated Concentrations of CO2 in the Atmosphere 6 Adaptations Associated with Inherent Variation in Growth Rate 6.1 Fast- and Slow-Growing Species 6.2 Growth of Inherently Fast- and Slow-Growing Species Under Resource-Limited Conditions 6.2.1 Growth at a Limiting Nutrient Supply 6.2.2 Growth in the Shade 6.3 Are There Ecological Advantages Associated with a High or Low RGR? 6.3.1 Various Hypotheses 6.3.2 Selection on RGRmax Itself, or on Traits That Are Associated with RGRmax? 6.3.3 An Appraisal of Plant Distribution Requires Information on Ecophysiology 7 Growth and Allocation: The Messages About Plant Messages References

8.

352 352 354 354 354 355 356 357 358 358 358 359 359 360 361 362 362 363 364 364 364 364 365 366 367 367

Life Cycles: Environmental Influences and Adaptations

375

1 Introduction 2 Seed Dormancy and Germination 2.1 Hard Seed Coats 2.2 Germination Inhibitors in the Seed 2.3 Effects of Nitrate 2.4 Other External Chemical Signals 2.5 Effects of Light 2.6 Effects of Temperature 2.7 Physiological Aspects of Dormancy 2.8 Summary of Ecological Aspects of Seed Germination and Dormancy 3 Developmental Phases 3.1 Seedling Phase 3.2 Juvenile Phase 3.2.1 Delayed Flowering in Biennials 3.2.2 Juvenile and Adult Traits

375 375 376 377 378 378 380 382 384 385 385 385 386 387 388

xxvi

9.

Contents 3.2.3 Vegetative Reproduction 3.2.4 Delayed Greening During Leaf Development in Tropical Trees 3.3 Reproductive Phase 3.3.1 Timing by Sensing Daylength: Long-Day and Short-Day Plants 3.3.2 Do Plants Sense the Difference Between a Certain Daylength in Spring and Autumn? 3.3.3 Timing by Sensing Temperature: Vernalization 3.3.4 Effects of Temperature on Plant Development 3.3.5 Attracting Pollinators 3.3.6 The Cost of Flowering 3.4 Fruiting 3.5 Senescence 4 Seed Dispersal 4.1 Dispersal Mechanisms 4.2 Life-History Correlates 5 The Message to Disperse: Perception, Transduction, and Response References

388

Biotic Influences

403

9A. Symbiotic Associations

403 403 403

1 Introduction 2 Mycorrhizas 2.1 Mycorrhizal Structures: Are They Beneficial for Plant Growth? 2.1.1 The Infection Process 2.1.2 Mycorrhizal Responsiveness 2.2 Nonmycorrhizal Species and Their Interactions with Mycorrhizal Species 2.3 Phosphate Relations 2.3.1 Mechanisms That Account for Enhanced Phosphate Absorption by Mycorrhizal Plants 2.3.2 Suppression of Colonization at High Phosphate Availability 2.4 Effects on Nitrogen Nutrition 2.5 Effects on the Acquisition of Water 2.6 Carbon Costs of the Mycorrhizal Symbiosis 2.7 Agricultural and Ecological Perspectives 3 Associations with Nitrogen-Fixing Organisms 3.1 Symbiotic N2Fixation Is Restricted to a Fairly Limited Number of Plant Species 3.2 Host–Guest Specificity in the Legume–Rhizobium Symbiosis 3.3 The Infection Process in the Legume–Rhizobium Association 3.3.1 The Role of Flavonoids 3.3.2 Rhizobial nod Genes 3.3.3 Entry of the Bacteria 3.3.4 Final Stages of the Establishment of the Symbiosis 3.4 Nitrogenase Activity and Synthesis of Organic Nitrogen

390 391 391 393 393 394 394 395 396 397 397 397 398 398 398

404 408 410 412 413 413 415 416 417 418 419 421 422 424 424 425 425 427 428 429

Contents

xxvii 3.5 3.6 3.7

Carbon and Energy Metabolism of the Nodules Quantification of N2 Fixation In Situ Ecological Aspects of the Nonsymbiotic Association with N2-Fixing Microorganisms 3.8 Carbon Costs of the Legume7Rhizobium Symbiosis 3.9 Suppression of the Legume7Rhizobium Symbiosis at Low pH and in the Presence of a Large Supply of Combined Nitrogen 4 Endosymbionts 5 Plant Life Among Microsymbionts References

9B. Ecological Biochemistry: Allelopathy and Defence against Herbivores 1 Introduction 2 Allelopathy (Interference Competition) 3 Chemical Defense Mechanisms 3.1 Defense Against Herbivores 3.2 Qualitative and Quantitative Defense Compounds 3.3 The Arms Race of Plants and Herbivores 3.4 How Do Plants Avoid Being Killed by Their Own Poisons? 3.5 Secondary Metabolites for Medicines and Crop Protection 4 Environmental Effects on the Production of Secondary Plant Metabolites 4.1 Abiotic Factors 4.2 Induced Defense and Communication Between Neighboring Plants 4.3 Communication Between Plants and Their Bodyguards 5 The Costs of Chemical Defense 5.1 Diversion of Resources from Primary Growth 5.2 Strategies of Predators 5.3 Mutualistic Associations with Ants and Mites 6 Detoxification of Xenobiotics by Plants: Phytoremediation 7 Secondary Chemicals and Messages That Emerge from This Chapter References

9C. Effects of Microbial Pathogens 1 2 3 4

Introduction Constitutive Antimicrobial Defense Compounds The Plant’s Response to Attack by Microorganisms Cross-Talk Between Induced Systemic Resistance and Defense Against Herbivores 5 Messages from One Organism to Another References

9D. Parasitic Associations 1 Introduction 2 Growth and Development 2.1 Seed Germination 2.2 Haustoria Formation 2.3 Effects of the Parasite on Host Development 3 Water Relations and Mineral Nutrition 4 Carbon Relations

431 432 433 434 435 436 437 437

445 445 445 448 448 451 451 455 457 460 460 462 464 466 466 468 469 469 472 473 479 479 479 481 485 488 488 491 491 492 492 493 496 498 500

xxviii

Contents 5 What Can We Extract from This Chapter? References

9E. Interactions Among Plants 1 2 3 4

Introduction Theories of Competitive Mechanisms How Do Plants Perceive the Presence of Neighbors? Relationship of Plant Traits to Competitive Ability 4.1 Growth Rate and Tissue Turnover 4.2 Allocation Pattern, Growth Form, and Tissue Mass Density 4.3 Plasticity 5 Traits Associated with Competition for Specific Resources 5.1 Nutrients 5.2 Water 5.3 Light 5.4 Carbon Dioxide 6 Positive Interactions Among Plants 6.1 Physical Benefits 6.2 Nutritional Benefits 6.3 Allelochemical Benefits 7 Plant7Microbial Symbiosis 8 Succession 9 What Do We Gain from This Chapter? References

9F. Carnivory 1 Introduction 2 Structures Associated with the Catching of the Prey and Subsequent Withdrawal of Nutrients from the Prey 3 Some Case Studies 3.1 Dionaea Muscipula 3.2 The Suction Traps of Utricularia 3.3 The Tentacles of Drosera 3.4 Pitchers of Sarracenia 3.5 Passive Traps of Genlisea 4 The Message to Catch References

10.

Role in Ecosystem and Global Processes 10A. Decomposition 1 Introduction 2 Litter Quality and Decomposition Rate 2.1 Species Effects on Litter Quality: Links with Ecological Strategy 2.2 Environmental Effects on Decomposition 3 The Link Between Decomposition Rate and Nutrient Supply 3.1 The Process of Nutrient Release 3.2 Effects of Litter Quality on Mineralization 3.3 Root Exudation and Rhizosphere Effects 4 The End Product of Decomposition References

501 501 505 505 509 509 512 512 513 514 516 516 517 518 518 521 521 521 521 522 524 526 527 533 533 533 536 537 539 541 542 542 543 543 545 545 545 546 546 547 548 548 549 550 552 552

Contents

xxix

10B. Ecosystem and Global Processes: Ecophysiological Controls 1 Introduction 2 Ecosystem Biomass and Production 2.1 Scaling from Plants to Ecosystems 2.2 Physiological Basis of Productivity 2.3 Disturbance and Succession 2.4 Photosynthesis and Absorbed Radiation 2.5 Net Carbon Balance of Ecosystems 2.6 The Global Carbon Cycle 3 Nutrient Cycling 3.1 Vegetation Controls over Nutrient Uptake and Loss 3.2 Vegetation Controls over Mineralization 4 Ecosystem Energy Exchange and the Hydrologic Cycle 4.1 Vegetation Effects on Energy Exchange 4.1.1 Albedo 4.1.2 Surface Roughness and Energy Partitioning 4.2 Vegetation Effects on the Hydrologic Cycle 4.2.1 Evapotranspiration and Runoff 4.2.2 Feedbacks to Climate 5 Moving to a Higher Level: Scaling from Physiology to the Globe References Glossary Index

555 555 555 555 556 558 559 561 561 563 563 565 565 565 565 566 567 567 568 568 569 573 591

1 Assumptions and Approaches

Introduction—History, Assumptions, and Approaches

1. What Is Ecophysiology? Plant ecophysiology is an experimental science that seeks to describe the physiological mechanisms underlying ecological observations. In other words, ecophysiologists, or physiological ecologists, address ecological questions about the controls over the growth, reproduction, survival, abundance, and geographical distribution of plants, as these processes are affected by interactions of plants with their physical, chemical, and biotic environment. These ecophysiological patterns and mechanisms can help us understand the functional significance of specific plant traits and their evolutionary heritage. The questions addressed by ecophysiologists are derived from a higher level of integration, i.e., from ‘‘ecology’’ in its broadest sense, including questions originating from agriculture, horticulture, forestry, and environmental sciences. However, the ecophysiological explanations often require mechanistic understanding at a lower level of integration (physiology, biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology). It is, therefore, quintessential for an ecophysiologist to have an appreciation of both ecological questions and biophysical, biochemical, and molecular methods and processes. In addition, many societal issues, often pertaining to agriculture, environmental change, or nature conservation, benefit from an ecophysiological perspective. A modern ecophysiologist thus requires a good understanding of both the molecular aspects of plant processes and

the functioning of the intact plant in its environmental context.

2. The Roots of Ecophysiology Plant ecophysiology aims to provide causal, mechanistic explanations for ecological questions relating to survival, distribution, abundance, and interactions of plants with other organisms. Why does a particular species live where it does? How does it manage to grow there successfully, and why is it absent from other environments? These questions were initially asked by geographers who described the global distributions of plants (Schimper 1898, Walter 1974). They observed consistent patterns of morphology associated with different environments and concluded that these differences in morphology must be important in explaining plant distributions. Geographers, who know climatic patterns, could therefore predict the predominant life forms of plants (Holdridge 1947). For example, many desert plants have small, thick leaves that minimize the heat load and danger of overheating in hot environments, whereas shade plants often have large, thin leaves that maximize light interception. These observations of morphology provided the impetus to investigate the physiological traits of plants from contrasting physical environments (Blackman 1919, Pearsall 1938, Ellenberg 1953, Larcher 1976).

H. Lambers et al., Plant Physiological Ecology, Second edition, DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-78341-3_1, Ó Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC 2008

1

2 Although ecophysiologists initially emphasized physiological responses to the abiotic environment [e.g., to calcareous vs. acidic substrates (Clarkson 1966) or dry vs. flooded soils (Crawford 1978)], physiological interactions with other plants, animals, and microorganisms also benefit from an understanding of ecophysiology. As such, ecophysiology is an essential element of every ecologist’s training. A second impetus for the development of ecophysiology came from agriculture and physiology. Even today, agricultural production in industrialized nations is limited to 25% of its potential by drought, infertile soils, and other environmental stresses (Boyer 1985). A major objective of agricultural research has always been to develop crops that are less sensitive to environmental stress so they can withstand periods of unfavorable weather or be grown in less favorable habitats. For this reason agronomists and physiologists have studied the mechanisms by which plants respond to or resist environmental stresses. Because some plants grow naturally in extremely infertile, dry, or salty environments, ecophysiologists were curious to know the mechanisms by which this is accomplished. Plant ecophysiology is the study of physiological responses to the environment. The field developed rapidly as a relatively unexplored interface between ecology and physiology. Ecology provided the questions, and physiology provided the tools to determine the mechanism. Techniques that measured the microenvironment of plants, their water relations, and their patterns of carbon exchange became typical tools of the trade in plant ecophysiology. With time, these studies have explored the mechanisms of physiological adaptation at ever finer levels of detail, from the level of the whole plant to its biochemical and molecular bases. For example, initially plant growth was described in terms of changes in plant mass. Development of portable equipment for measuring leaf gas exchange enabled ecologists to measure rates of carbon gain and loss by individual leaves (Reich et al. 1997). Growth analyses documented carbon and nutrient allocation to roots and leaves and rates of production and death of individual tissues. These processes together provide a more thorough explanation for differences in plant growth in different environments (Mooney 1972, Lambers & Poorter 1992). Studies of plant water relations and mineral nutrition provide additional insight into controls over rates of carbon exchange and tissue turnover. More recently, we have learned many details about the biochemical basis of photosynthesis and respiration in different environments and, finally, about the molecular basis for differences in key photosynthetic and respiratory proteins. This

1. Assumptions and Approaches mainstream of ecophysiology has been highly successful in explaining why plants are able to grow where they do.

3. Physiological Ecology and the Distribution of Organisms Although there are 270000 species of land plants (Hammond 1995), a series of filters eliminates most of these species from any given site and restricts the actual vegetation to a relatively small number of species (Fig. 1). Many species are absent from a given plant community for historical reasons. They may have evolved in a different region and never dispersed to the site under consideration. For example, the tropical alpine of South America has few species in common with the tropical alpine of Africa, despite similar environmental conditions, whereas eastern Russia and Alaska have very similar species composition because of extensive migration of species across a land bridge connecting these regions when Pleistocene glaciations lowered sea level 20000—100000 years ago. Of those species that arrive at a site, many lack the appropriate physiological traits to survive the physical environment. For example, whalers inadvertently brought seeds of many weedy species to Svalbard, north of Norway, and to Barrow, in northern Alaska. However, in contrast to most temperate regions, there are currently no exotic weed species in these northern sites (Billings 1973). Clearly, the physical environment has filtered out many species that may have arrived but lacked the physiological traits to grow, survive, and reproduce in the Arctic. Biotic interactions exert an additional filter that eliminates many species that may have arrived and are capable of surviving the physical environment. Most plant species that are transported to different continents as ornamental or food crops never spread beyond the areas where they were planted because they cannot compete with native species (a biotic filter). Sometimes, however, a plant species that is introduced to a new place without the diseases or herbivores that restricted its distribution in its native habitat becomes an aggressive invader, for example, Opuntia ficus-indica (prickly pear) in Australia, Solidago canadensis (golden rod) in Europe, Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom) in North America, and Acacia cyclops (red-eyed wattle) and A. saligna (orange wattle) in South Africa. Because of biotic interactions, the actual distribution of a species (realized niche, as determined by ecological amplitude) is more restricted than the range of conditions

Physiological Ecology and the Distribution of Organisms

3

FIGURE 1. Historical, physiological, and biotic filters that determine the species composition of vegetation at a particular site.

where it can grow and reproduce (its fundamental niche, as determined by physiological amplitude) (Fig. 2). Historical, physiological, and biotic filters are constantly changing and interacting. Human and natural introductions or extinctions of species, chance dispersal events, and extreme events such as volcanic eruptions or floods change the species pool present at a site. Changes in climate, weathering of soils, and introduction or extinction of species change the physical and biotic environment. Those plant species that can grow and reproduce under the new conditions or respond evolutionarily so that their physiology provides a better match to this environment will persist. Because of these interacting filters, the species present at a site are simply those that arrived and survived. There is no reason to assume that the species present at a site attain their maximal physiologically possible rates of growth and reproduction (Vrba & Gould 1986). In fact, controlledenvironment studies typically demonstrate that a given species is most common under environmental conditions that are distinctly suboptimal for

most physiological processes because biotic interactions prevent most species from occupying the most favorable habitats (Fig. 2). Given the general principle that species that are present at any site reflect their arrival and survival, why does plant species diversity differ among sites that differ in soil fertility? Typically, this diversity increases with decreasing soil fertility, up to a maximum, and then declines again (Grime 1979, Huston 1994). To answer this question, we need detailed ecophysiological information on the various mechanisms that allow plants to compete and coexist in different environments. The information that is required will depend on which ecosystem is studied. In biodiverse (i.e., species-rich), nutrientpoor, tropical rainforests, with a wide variation in light climate, plant traits that enhance the conversion of light into biomass or conserve carbon are likely to be important for an understanding of plant diversity. In the biodiverse, nutrient-impoverished sandplains of South Africa and Australia, however, variation in root traits that are associated with nutrient acquisition offers clues to understanding plant species diversity.

4

1. Assumptions and Approaches

FIGURE 2. Biomass production of two hypothetical species (x and y) as a function of resource supply. In the absence of competition (upper panels), the physiological amplitude of species x and y (PAx and PAy, respectively) defines the range of conditions over which each species can grow. In the presence of competition (lower panels), plants grow over a smaller range of conditions (their ecological amplitude, EAx and EAy) that is

constrained by competition from other species. A given pattern of species distribution (e.g., that shown in the bottom panels) can result from species that differ in their maximum biomass achieved (left-hand pair of graphs), shape of resource response curve (center pair of graphs), or physiological amplitude (right-hand pair of graphs). Adapted from Walter (1973).

4. Time Scale of Plant Response to Environment

stress resistance differ widely among species. They range from avoidance of the stress, e.g., in deeprooting species growing in a low-rainfall area, to stress tolerance, e.g., in Mediterranean species that can cope with a low leaf water content. Physiological processes differ in their sensitivity to stress. The most meaningful physiological processes to consider are growth and reproduction, which integrate the stress effects on fine-scale physiological processes as they relate to fitness, i.e., differential survival and reproduction in a competitive environment. To understand the mechanism of plant response, however, we must consider the response of individual processes at a finer scale (e.g., the response of photosynthesis or of light-harvesting pigments to a change in light intensity). We recognize at least three distinct time scales of plant response to stress:

We define stress as an environmental factor that reduces the rate of some physiological process (e.g., growth or photosynthesis) below the maximum rate that the plant could otherwise sustain. Stresses can be generated by abiotic and/or biotic processes. Examples of stress include low nitrogen availability, heavy metals, high salinity, and shading by neighboring plants. The immediate response of the plant to stress is a reduction in performance (Fig. 3). Plants compensate for the detrimental effects of stress through many mechanisms that operate over different time scales, depending on the nature of the stress and the physiological processes that are affected. Together, these compensatory responses enable the plant to maintain a relatively constant rate of physiological processes despite occurrence of stresses that periodically reduce performance. If a plant is going to be successful in a stressful environment, then there must be some degree of stress resistance. Mechanisms of

1. The stress response is the immediate detrimental effect of a stress on a plant process. This generally occurs over a time scale of seconds to days, resulting in a decline in performance of the process.

Time Scale of Plant Response to Environment

5

FIGURE 3. Typical time course of plant response to environmental stress. The immediate response to environmental stress is a reduction in physiological activity. Through acclimation, individual plants compensate for this stress such that activity returns toward the control level. Over evolutionary time, populations adapt to environmental stress, resulting in a further increase in

activity level toward that of the unstressed unadapted plant. The total increase in activity resulting from acclimation and adaptation is the in situ activity observed in natural populations and represents the total homeostatic compensation in response to environmental stress.

2. Acclimation is the morphological and physiological adjustment by individual plants to compensate for the decline in performance following the initial stress response. Acclimation occurs in response to environmental change through changes in the activity or synthesis of new biochemical constituents such as enzymes, often associated with the production of new tissue. These biochemical changes then initiate a cascade of effects that are observed at other levels, such as changes in rate or environmental sensitivity of a specific process (e.g., photosynthesis), growth rate of whole plants, and morphology of organs or the entire plant. Acclimation to stress always occurs within the lifetime of an individual, usually within days to weeks. Acclimation can be demonstrated by comparing genetically similar plants that are growing in different environments. 3. Adaptation is the evolutionary response resulting from genetic changes in populations that compensate for the decline in performance caused by stress. The physiological mechanisms of response are often similar to those of acclimation, because both require changes in the activity or synthesis of biochemical constituents and cause changes in rates of individual physiological processes, growth rate, and morphology. In

fact, adaptation may alter the potential of plants to acclimate to short-term environmental variation. Adaptation, as we define it, differs from acclimation in that it requires genetic changes in populations and therefore typically requires many generations to occur. We can study adaptation by comparing genetically distinct plants grown in a common environment. Not all genetic differences among populations reflect adaptation. Evolutionary biologists have often criticized ecophysiologists for promoting the ‘‘Panglossian paradigm’’, i.e., the idea that just because a species exhibits certain traits in a particular environment, these traits must be beneficial and must have resulted from natural selection in that environment (Gould & Lewontin 1979). Plants may differ genetically because their ancestral species or populations were genetically distinct before they arrived in the habitat we are studying or other historical reasons may be responsible for the existence of the present genome. Such differences are not necessarily adaptive. There are at least two additional processes that can cause particular traits to be associated with a given environment: 1. Through the quirks of history, the ancestral species or population that arrived at the site may

6 have been pre-adapted, i.e., exhibited traits that allowed continued persistence in these conditions. Natural selection for these traits may have occurred under very different environmental circumstances. For example, the tree species that currently occupy the mixed deciduous forests of Europe and North America were associated with very different species and environments during the Pleistocene, 100000 years ago. They co-occur now because they migrated to the same place some time in the past (the historical filter), can grow and reproduce under current environmental conditions (the physiological filter), and outcompeted other potential species in these communities and successfully defended themselves against past and present herbivores and pathogens (the biotic filter). 2. Once species arrive in a given geographic region, their distribution is fine-tuned by ecological sorting, in which each species tends to occupy those habitats where it most effectively competes with other plants and defends itself against natural enemies (Vrba & Gould 1986).

5. Conceptual and Experimental Approaches Documentation of the correlation between plant traits and environmental conditions is the raw material for many ecophysiological questions. Plants in the high alpine of Africa are strikingly similar in morphology and physiology to those of the alpine of tropical South America and New Guinea, despite very different phylogenetic histories. The similarity of physiology and morphology of shrubs from Mediterranean regions of western parts of Spain, South Africa, Chile, Australia, and the United States suggests that the distinct floras of these regions have undergone convergent evolution in response to similar climatic regimes (Mooney & Dunn 1970). For example, evergreen shrubs are common in each of these regions. These shrubs have small, thick leaves, which continue to photosynthesize under conditions of low water availability during the warm, dry summers characteristic of Mediterranean climates. The shrubs of all Mediterranean regions effectively retain nutrients when leaves are shed, a trait that could be important on infertile soils, and often resprout after fire, which occurs commonly in these regions. Documentation of a correlation of traits with environment, however, can

1. Assumptions and Approaches never determine the relative importance of adaptation to these conditions and other factors such as pre-adaptation of the ancestral floras and ecological sorting of ancestral species into appropriate habitats. Moreover, traits that are measured under field conditions reflect the combined effects of differences in magnitude and types of environmental stresses, genetic differences among populations in stress response, and acclimation of individuals to stress. Thus, documentation of correlations between physiology and environment in the field provides a basis for interesting ecophysiological hypotheses, but these hypotheses can rarely be tested without complementary approaches such as growth experiments or phylogenetic analyses. Growth experiments allow one to separate the effects of acclimation by individuals and genetic differences among populations. Acclimation can be documented by measuring the physiology of genetically similar plants grown under different environmental conditions. Such experiments show, for example, that plants grown at low temperature generally have a lower optimum temperature for photosynthesis than warm-grown plants (Billings et al. 1971). By growing plants collected from alpine and low-elevation habitats under the same environmental conditions, we can demonstrate genetic differences: with the alpine plant generally having a lower temperature optimum for photosynthesis than the low-elevation population. Thus, many alpine plants photosynthesize just as rapidly as their low-elevation counterparts, due to both acclimation and adaptation. Controlled-environment experiments are an important complement to field observations. Conversely, field observations and experiments provide a context for interpreting the significance of laboratory experiments. Both acclimation and adaptation reflect complex changes in many plant traits, making it difficult to evaluate the importance of changes in any particular trait. Ecological modeling and molecular modification of specific traits are two approaches to explore the ecological significance of specific traits. Ecological models can range from simple empirical relationships (e.g., the temperature response of photosynthesis) to complex mathematical models that incorporate many indirect effects, such as negative feedbacks of sugar accumulation to photosynthesis. A common assumption of these models is that there are both costs and benefits associated with a particular trait, such that no trait enables a plant to perform best in all environments (i.e., there are no ‘‘super-plants’’ or ‘‘Darwinian demons’’ that are

The Structure of the Book superior in all components). That is presumably why there are so many interesting physiological differences among plants. These models seek to identify the conditions under which a particular trait allows superior performance or compare performance of two plants that differ in traits. The theme of trade-offs (i.e., the costs and benefits of particular traits) is one that will recur frequently in this book. A second, more experimental approach to the question of optimality is molecular modification of the gene that encodes a trait, including the regulation of its expression. In this way we can explore the consequences of a change in photosynthetic capacity, sensitivity to a specific hormone, or response to shade. This molecular approach is an extension of comparative ecophysiological studies, in which plants from different environments that are as similar as possible except with respect to the trait of interest are grown in a common environment. Molecular modification of single genes allows evaluation of the physiological and ecological consequences of a trait, while holding constant the rest of the biology of the plants.

7 mechanisms by which plants can live where they occur. These same physiological processes, however, have important effects on the environment, shading the soil, removing nutrients that might otherwise be available to other plants or soil microorganisms, transporting water from the soil to the atmosphere, thus both drying the soil and increasing atmospheric moisture. These plant effects can be large and provide a mechanistic basis for understanding processes at larger scales, such as community, ecosystem, and climatic processes (Chapin 2003). For example, forests that differ only in species composition can differ substantially in productivity and rates of nutrient cycling. Simulation models suggest that species differences in stomatal conductance and rooting depth could significantly affect climate at regional and continental scales (Foley et al. 2003, Field et al. 2007). As human activities increasingly alter the species composition of large portions of the globe, it is critical that we understand the ecophysiological basis of community, ecosystem, and global processes.

7. The Structure of the Book 6. New Directions in Ecophysiology Plant ecophysiology has several new and potentially important contributions to make to biology. The rapidly growing human population requires increasing supplies of food, fiber, and energy, at a time when the best agricultural land is already in production or being lost to urban development and land degradation. It is thus increasingly critical that we identify traits or suites of traits that maximize sustainable food and fiber production on both highly productive and less productive sites. The development of varieties that grow effectively with inadequate supplies of water and nutrients is particularly important in less developed countries that often lack the economic and transportation resources to support high-intensity agriculture. Molecular biology and traditional breeding programs provide the tools to develop new combinations of traits in plants, including GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Ecophysiology is perhaps the field that is best suited to determine the costs, benefits, and consequences of changes in these traits, as whole plants, including GMOs, interact with complex environments. Past ecophysiological studies have described important physiological differences among plant species and have demonstrated many of the

We assume that the reader already has a basic understanding of biochemical and physiological processes in plants. Chapters 2A—C in this book deal with the primary processes of carbon metabolism and transport. After introducing some biochemical and physiological aspects of photosynthesis (Chapter 2A), we discuss differences in photosynthetic traits among species and link these with the species’ natural habitat. Trade-offs are discussed, like that between a high water-use efficiency and a high efficiency of nitrogen use in photosynthesis (Chapter 2A). In Chapter 2B we analyze carbon use in respiration and explore its significance for the plant’s carbon balance in different species and environments. Species differences in the transport of photosynthates from the site of production to various sinks are discussed in Chapter 2C. For example, the phloem transport system in climbing plants involves an interesting trade-off between transport capacity and the risk of major damage to the system. A similar trade-off between capacity and safety is encountered in Chapter 3, which deals with plant water relations. Subsequently, the plant’s energy balance (Chapter 4A) and the effects of radiation and temperature (Chapter 4B) are discussed. After these chapters that describe photosynthesis, water use, and energy balance in individual leaves and whole plants, we then scale

8 the processes up to the level of an entire canopy, demonstrating that processes at the level of a canopy are not necessarily the sum of what happens in single leaves, due to the effects of the surrounding leaves (Chapter 5). Chapter 6 discusses mineral nutrition and the numerous ways in which plants cope with soils with low nutrient availability or toxic metal concentrations (e.g., sodium, aluminum, heavy metals). These first chapters emphasize those aspects that help us to analyze ecological problems. Moreover, they provide a sound basis for later chapters in the book that deal with a higher level of integration. The following chapters deal with patterns of growth and allocation (Chapter 7), life-history traits (Chapter 8), and interactions of individual plants with other organisms: symbiotic microorganisms (Chapter 9A); ecological biochemistry, discussing allelopathy and defense against herbivores (Chapter 9B); microbial pathogens (Chapter 9C); parasitic plants (Chapter 9D); interactions among plants in communities (Chapter 9E); and animals used as prey by carnivorous plants (Chapter 9F). These chapters build on information provided in the initial chapters. The final chapters deal with ecophysiological traits that affect decomposition of plant material in contrasting environments (Chapter 10A) and with the role of plants in ecosystem and global processes (Chapter 10B). Many topics in the first two series of chapters are again addressed in this broader context. For example, allocation patterns and defense compounds affect decomposition. Photosynthetic pathways and allocation patterns affect to what extent plant growth is enhanced at elevated levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Throughout the text, ‘‘boxes’’ are used to elaborate on specific problems, without cluttering up the text. They are meant for students seeking a deeper understanding of problems discussed in the main text. A glossary provides quick access to the meaning of technical terms used in both this book and the plant ecophysiological literature. The references at the end of each chapter are an entry point to relevant literature in the field. We emphasize review papers that provide broad syntheses but also include key experimental papers in rapidly developing areas (‘‘the cutting edge’’). In general, this book aims at students who are already familiar with basic principles in ecology, physiology, and biochemistry. It should provide an invaluable text for both undergraduates and postgraduates and a reference for professionals.

1. Assumptions and Approaches

References Billings, W.D. 1973. Arctic and alpine vegetation: Similarities, differences, and susceptibility to disturbance. BioScience 23: 697—704. Billings, W.D., Godfrey, P.J., Chabot, B.F., & Bourque, D.P. 1971. Metabolic acclimation to temperature in arctic and alpine ecotypes of Oxyria digyna. Arc. Alp. Res. 3: 277—289. Blackman, V.H. 1919. The compound interest law and plant growth. Ann. Bot. 33: 353—360. Boyer, J.S. 1985. Water transport. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 36: 473—516. Chapin III, F.S., 2003. Effects of plant traits on ecosystem and regional processes: A conceptual framework for predicting the consequences of global change. Ann. Bot. 91: 455—463. Clarkson, D.T. 1966. Aluminium tolerance in species within the genus Agrostis. J. Ecol. 54: 167—178. Crawford, R.M.M. 1978. Biochemical and ecological similarities in marsh plants and diving animals. Naturwissenschaften 65: 194—201. Ellenberg, H. 1953. Physiologisches und okologisches Ver¨ halten derselben Pflanzanarten. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 65: 351—361. Field, C.B., Lobell, D.B., Peters, H.A., & Chiariello, N.R. 2007. Feedbacks of terrestrial ecosystems to climate change. Annu. Rev. Env. Res. 32: 1—29. Foley, J.A., Costa, M.H., Delire, C., Ramankutty, N., & Snyder, P. 2003. Green surprise? How terrestrial ecosystems could affect earth’s climate. Front. Ecol. Environ. 1: 38—44. Gould, S.J. & Lewontin, R.C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationists programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 205: 581—598. Grime, J.P. 1979. Plant strategies and vegetation processes. Wiley, Chichester. Hammond, P.M. 1995. The current magnitude of biodiversity. In: Global biodiversity assessment, V.H. Heywood (ed.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 113—138. Holdridge, L.R. 1947. Determination of world plant formations from simple climatic data. Science 105: 367—368. Huston, M.A. 1994. Biological diversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lambers, H. & Poorter, H. 1992. Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: A search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Adv. Ecol. Res. 22: 187—261. ¨ Larcher, W. 1976. Okologie der Pflanzen. Ulmer, Stuttgart. Mooney, H.A. 1972. The carbon balance of plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 3: 315—346. Mooney, H.A. & Dunn, E.L. 1970. Convergent evolution of Mediterranean-climate sclerophyll shrubs. Evolution 24: 292—303. Pearsall, W.H. 1938. The soil complex in relation to plant communities. J. Ecol. 26: 180—193. Reich, P.B., Walters, M.B., & Ellsworth, D.S. 1997. From tropics to tundra: Global convergence in plant functioning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 94: 13730—13734.

References Schimper, A.F.W. 1898. Pflanzengeographie und physiologische Grundlage. Verlag von Gustav Fischer, Jena. Vrba, E.S. & Gould, S.J. 1986. The hierarchical expansion of sorting and selection: Sorting and selection cannot be equated. Paleobiology 12: 217—228.

9 Walter, H. 1973. Die Vegetation der Erde in o¨kophysiologischer Betrachtung. 3rd ed. Gutsav Fisher Verlag, Jena. Walter, H. 1974. Die Vegetation der Erde. Gustav Fisher Verlag, Jena.

2 Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

2A.

Photosynthesis

1. Introduction Approximately 40% of a plant’s dry mass consists of carbon, fixed in photosynthesis. This process is vital for growth and survival of virtually all plants during the major part of their growth cycle. In fact, life on Earth in general, not just that of plants, totally depends on current and/or past photosynthetic activity. Leaves are beautifully specialized organs that enable plants to intercept light necessary for photosynthesis. The light is captured by a large array of chloroplasts that are in close proximity to air and not too far away from vascular tissue, which supplies water and exports the products of photosynthesis. In most plants, CO2 uptake occurs through leaf pores, the stomata, which are able to rapidly change their aperture (Sect. 5.4 of Chapter 3 on plant water relations). Once inside the leaf, CO2 diffuses from the intercellular air spaces to the sites of carboxylation in the chloroplast (C3 species) or in the cytosol (C4 and CAM species). Ideal conditions for photosynthesis include an ample supply of water and nutrients to the plant, and optimal temperature and light conditions. Even when the environmental conditions are less favorable, however, such as in a desert, alpine environments, or the understory of a forest, photosynthesis, at least of the adapted and acclimated plants, continues (for a discussion of the concepts of acclimation and adaptation, see Fig. 3 and

Sect. 4 in Chapter 1 on assumptions and approaches). This chapter addresses how such plants manage to photosynthesize and/or protect their photosynthetic machinery in adverse environments, what goes wrong in plants that are not adapted and fail to acclimate, and how photosynthesis depends on a range of other physiological activities in the plant.

2. General Characteristics of the Photosynthetic Apparatus 2.1 The ‘‘Light’’ and ‘‘Dark’’ Reactions of Photosynthesis To orient ourselves, we imagine zooming in on a chloroplast: from a tree, to a leaf, to a cell in a leaf, and then to the many chloroplasts in a single cell, where the primary processes of photosynthesis occur. In C3 plants most of the chloroplasts are located in the mesophyll cells of the leaves (Fig. 1). Three main processes are distinguished: 1. Absorption of photons by pigments, mainly chlorophylls, associated with two photosystems. The pigments are embedded in internal membrane structures (thylakoids) and absorb a major part of the energy of the photosynthetically

H. Lambers et al., Plant Physiological Ecology, Second edition, DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-78341-3_2, Ó Springer ScienceþBusiness Media, LLC 2008

11

12

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 1. (A) Scanning electron microscope crosssectional view of a dorsiventral leaf of Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco), showing palisade tissue beneath the upper (adaxial) epidermis, and spongy tissue adjacent to the (lower) abaxial epidermis. (B) Scanning electron microscope cross-sectional view of an isobilateral leaf of Hakea prostrata (harsh hakea). (C) Transmission electron microscope micrograph of a tobacco chloroplast, showing appressed (grana) and unappressed regions of

the thylakoids, stroma, and starch granules. Note the close proximity of two mitochondria (top and bottom) and one peroxisome (scale bar is 1 mm) (Nicotiana tabacum: courtesy J.R. Evans, Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia; Hakea prostrata: courtesy M.W Shane, School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia, Australia).

active radiation (PAR; 400—700 nm). They transfer the excitation energy to the reaction centers of the photosystems where the second process starts. 2. Electrons derived from the splitting of water with the simultaneous production of O2 are transported along an electron-transport chain embedded in the thylakoid membrane. NADPH and ATP produced in this process are used in the third process. Since these two reactions depend on light energy, they are called the ‘‘light reactions’’ of photosynthesis. 3. The NADPH and ATP are used in the photosynthetic carbon-reduction cycle (Calvin cycle), in which CO2 is assimilated leading to the synthesis of C3 compounds (triose-phosphates). These processes can proceed in the absence of light and are referred to as the ‘‘dark reactions’’ of photosynthesis. As discussed in Sect. 3.4.2, however, some of the enzymes involved in the ‘‘dark’’ reactions require light for their activation, and hence the

difference between ‘‘light’’ and ‘‘dark’’ reaction is somewhat blurred.

2.1.1 Absorption of Photons The reaction center of photosystem I (PS I) is a chlorophyll dimer with an absorption peak at 700 nm, hence called P700. There are about 110 ‘‘ordinary’’ chlorophyll a (chl a) molecules per P700 as well as several different protein molecules, to keep the chlorophyll molecules in the required position in the thylakoid membranes (Lichtenthaler & Babani 2004). The number of PS I units can be quantified by determining the amount of P700 molecules, which can be assessed by measuring absorption changes at 830 nm. The reaction center of photosystem II (PS II) contains redox components, including a chlorophyll a molecule with an absorption peak at 680 nm, called

General Characteristics of the Photosynthetic Apparatus

13

P680, pheophytin, which is like a chlorophyll molecule but without the Mg atom, and the first quinone acceptor of an electron (QA) (Chow 2003). Redox cofactors in PS II are bound to the structure of the so-called D1/D2 proteins in PS II. PS I and PS II units do not contain chl b (Lichtenthaler & Babani 2004). Several protein molecules keep the chlorophyll molecules in the required position in the thylakoid membranes. In vitro, P680 is too unstable to be used to quantify the amount of PS II. The herbicide atrazine binds specifically to one of the complexing protein molecules of PS II, however; when using 14 C-labeled atrazine, this binding can be quantified and used to determine the total amount of PS II. Alternatively, the quantity of functional PS II centers can be determined, in vivo, by the O2 yield from leaf disks, exposed to 1% CO2 and repetitive light flashes. A good correlation exists between the two assays. The O2 yield per flash provides a convenient, direct assay of PS II in vivo when conditions are selected to avoid limitation by PS I (Chow et al. 1989). A large part of the chlorophyll is located in the light-harvesting complex (LHC). These chlorophyll molecules act as antennae to trap light and transfer its excitation energy to the reaction centers of one of

the photosystems. The reaction centers are strategically located to transfer electrons along the electron-transport chains. The ratio of chl a/chl b is about 1.1—1.3 for LHC (Lichtenthaler & Babani 2004). Leaves appear green in white light, because chlorophyll absorbs more efficiently in the blue and red than in the green portions of the spectrum; beyond approximately 720 nm, there is no absorption by chlorophyll at all. The absorption spectrum of intact leaves differs from that of free chlorophyll in solution, and leaves absorb a significant portion of the radiation in regions where chlorophyll absorbs very little in vitro (Fig. 2). This is due to (1) the modification of the absorption spectra of the chlorophyll molecules bound in protein complexes in vivo, (2) the presence of accessory pigments, such as carotenoids, in the chloroplast, and, most importantly, (3) light scattering within the leaf (Sect. 3.2.2).

FIGURE 2. (A) The relative absorbance spectrum of chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b; absorbance = –log (transmitted light/incident light); (B) The relative absorbance spectrum of pigment-protein complexes: PS II reaction centre and PS II light-harvesting complex; (courtesy J.R. Evans, Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

(C) Light absorption of an intact green leaf of Encelia californica; for comparison the absorption spectrum of an intact white (pubescent) leaf of Encelia farinosa (brittlebush) is also given. From Ehleringer et al. (1976), Science 227: 1479–1481. Reprinted with kind permission from AAS.

2.1.2 Fate of the Excited Chlorophyll Each quantum of red light absorbed by a chlorophyll molecule raises an electron from a ground state to an excited state. Absorption of light of shorter wavelengths (e.g., blue light) excites the chlorophyll to an even higher energy state. In the

14

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

higher energy state after absorption of blue light, however, chlorophyll is unstable and rapidly gives up some of its energy to the surroundings as heat, so that the elevated electron immediately falls back into the orbit of the electron excited by red light. Thus, whatever the wavelength of the light absorbed, chlorophyll reaches the same excitation state upon photon capture. In this excitation state, chlorophyll is stable for 10—9 seconds, after which it disposes of its available energy in one of three ways (Krause & Weis 1991): 1. The primary pathway of excitation energy is its highly efficient transfer to other chlorophyll molecules, and ultimately to the reaction center where it is used in photochemistry, driving biochemical reactions. 2. The excited chlorophyll can also return to its ground state by converting its excitation energy into heat. In this process no photon is emitted. 3. The excited chlorophyll can emit a photon and thereby return to its ground state; this process is called fluorescence. Most fluorescence is emitted by chl a of PS II. The wavelength of fluorescence is slightly longer than that of the absorbed light, because a portion of the excitation energy is lost before the fluorescence photon is emitted. Chlorophylls usually fluoresce in the red; it is a deeper red (the wavelength is about 10 nm longer) than the red absorption peak of chlorophyll. Fluorescence increases when photochemistry and/or dissipation are low relative to photon absorption, but the process is not regulated as such. This can occur under conditions of excessive light, severely limiting CO2 supply, or stresses that inhibit photochemistry. The primary photochemical reactions of PS II and PS I occur at a much faster rate than subsequent electron transport (Sect. 2.1.3), which in turn occurs faster than carbon reduction processes (Sect. 2.1.4). Since the three compartments of the photosynthetic apparatus operate in series, they are each tightly regulated to coordinate their activity under changing conditions.

2.1.3 Membrane-Bound Photosynthetic Electron Transport and Bioenergetics The excitation energy captured by the pigments is transferred to the reaction centers of PS I and PS II. PS I and PS II are associated with different regions of the thylakoid membrane. PS I is located in the stroma-exposed ‘‘unappressed’’ regions, and PS II is largely associated with the ‘‘appressed’’ regions

where thylakoids border other thylakoids (grana) (Fig. 1). In PS II an electron, derived from the splitting of water into O2 and protons, is transferred to pheophytin, and then to plastoquinone (QA, bound to D2 protein, a one-electron carrier), followed by transfer to QB (bound to D1 protein, a two-electron carrier), and then to free plastoquinone. Plastoquinone (PQ) is subsequently reduced and transported to the cytochrome b/f complex. In the process protons are transported across the membrane into the thylakoid lumen (Fig. 3). The two sources of protons acidify and charge the thylakoid lumen positively. The electrochemical potential gradient across the thylakoid membrane, representing a proton-motive force, is subsequently used to phosphorylate ADP, thus producing ATP. This reaction is catalyzed by an ATPase, or coupling factor, located in the stromaexposed, unappressed regions of the thylakoids. In linear electron transport, electrons are transferred from the cytochrome b/f complex to PS I through plastocyanin (PC) that migrates through the thylakoid lumen. NADP is reduced by ferredoxin as the terminal acceptor of electrons from PS I which results in formation of NADPH. In cyclic electron transport, electrons are transferred from PS I back to cytochrome b/f through plastoquinone, thus contributing to proton extrusion in the lumen and subsequent ATP synthesis. NADPH and ATP are used in the carbon-reduction cycle that is located in the stroma. Linear electron transport is the principal pathway, whereas the engagement of cyclic electron transport is tuned to the demand for ATP relative to NADPH. Other components of the photosynthetic membrane are also regulated, particularly with respect to the prevailing light conditions.

2.1.4 Photosynthetic Carbon Reduction Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP) and CO2 are the substrates for the principal enzyme of the carbonreduction or Calvin cycle: ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) (Fig. 4). The first product of carboxylation of RuBP by Rubisco is phosphoglyceric acid (PGA) a compound with three carbon atoms, hence, the name C3 photosynthesis. With the consumption of the ATP and NADPH produced in the light reactions, PGA is reduced to a triose-phosphate (triose-P), some of which is exported to the cytosol in exchange for inorganic phosphate (Pi). In the cytosol, triose-P is used to produce sucrose and other metabolites that are exported via the phloem or used in the leaves. Most of the triose-P remaining in the chloroplast is used to regenerate RuBP through a series of

General Characteristics of the Photosynthetic Apparatus

15

FIGURE 3. Schematic representation of the thylakoid membrane, enclosing the thylakoid lumen, showing the transfer of excitation energy and of electrons, migration of molecules and chemical reactions. P700: reaction

center of photosystem I; P680: reaction center of photosystem II; LHC: light-harvesting complex; Q: quinones; PC, plastocyanin; Fd: ferredoxin; cyt: cytochromes.

reactions that are part of the Calvin cycle in which ATP and NADPH are consumed (Fig. 4). About 1/6 of the triose-P remaining in the chloroplast is used to produce starch, which is stored inside the chloroplast, or is exported. During the night, starch may be hydrolyzed, and the product of this reaction, trioseP, is exported to the cytosol. The photosynthetic carbon-reduction cycle has various control points and factors that function as stabilizing mechanisms under changing environmental conditions.

phosphoglycolate. This C2 molecule is first dephosphorylated in the chloroplast, producing glycolate (Fig. 5), which is exported to the peroxisomes, where it is metabolized to glyoxylate and then glycine. Glycine is exported to the mitochondria where two molecules are converted to produce one serine with the release of one molecule of CO2 and one NH3. Serine is exported back to the peroxisomes, where a transamination occurs, producing one molecule of hydroxypyruvate and then glycerate. Glycerate moves back to the chloroplast, to be converted into PGA. So, out of two phosphoglycolate molecules one glycerate is made and one C-atom is lost as CO2. The entire process, starting with the oxygenation reaction, is called photorespiration, as it consumes O2 and releases CO2; it depends on light, or, more precisely, on photosynthetic activity. The process is distinct from ‘‘dark respiration’’ that largely consists of mitochondrial decarboxylation processes that proceed independent of light. Dark respiration is discussed in Chapter 2B on respiration.

2.1.5 Oxygenation and Photorespiration Rubisco catalyzes not only the carboxylation of RuBP, but also its oxygenation (Fig. 5). The ratio of the carboxylation and the oxygenation reaction strongly depends on the relative concentrations of CO2 and O2 and on leaf temperature. The products of the carboxylation reaction are two C3 molecules (PGA), whereas the oxygenation reaction produces only one PGA and one C2 molecule:

16

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 4. Schematic representation of the photosynthetic carbon reduction cycle (Calvin cycle) showing major steps: carbon fixation, triose-P production and regeneration of RuBP. 1: CO2 combines with its substrate, ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP), catalyzed by ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco), producing phosphoglyceric acid (PGA). 2: PGA is reduced to triose-phosphate (triose-P), in a

two-step reaction; the reaction for which ATP is required is the conversion of PGA to 1,3-bisphosphoglycerate, catalyzed by phosphoglycerate kinase. 3 and 4: Part of the triose-P is exported to the cytosol, in exchange for Pi; the remainder is used to regenerate ribulose-1-monophosphate. 5: ribulose-1-monophosphate is phosphorylated, catalyzed by ribulose-5phosphate kinase, producing RuBP.

2.2 Supply and Demand of CO2 in the Photosynthetic Process

2.2.1 Demand for CO2—the CO2-Response Curve

The rate of photosynthetic carbon assimilation is determined by both the supply and demand for CO2. The supply of CO2 to the chloroplast is governed by diffusion in the gas and liquid phases and can be limited at several points in the pathway from the air surrounding the leaf to the site of carboxylation inside. The demand for CO2 is determined by the rate of processing the CO2 in the chloroplast which is governed by the structure and biochemistry of the chloroplast (Sect. 2.1), by environmental factors such as irradiance, and factors that affect plant demand for carbohydrates (Sect. 4.2). Limitations imposed by either supply or demand can determine the overall rate of carbon assimilation, as explained below.

The response of photosynthetic rate to CO2 concentration is the principal tool to analyze the demand for CO2 and partition the limitations imposed by demand and supply (Warren 2007, Flexas et al. 2008) (Fig. 6). The graph giving net CO2 assimilation (An) as a function of CO2 concentration at the site of Rubisco in the chloroplast (Cc) is referred to as the AnCc curve. With rising CO2, there is no net CO2 assimilation, until the production of CO2 in respiration (mainly photorespiration, but also some dark respiration occurring in the light) is fully compensated by the fixation of CO2 in photosynthesis. The CO2 concentration at which this is reached is the CO2-compensation point (). In C3 plants this is largely determined by the kinetic properties of Rubisco,

General Characteristics of the Photosynthetic Apparatus

FIGURE 5. Reactions and organelles involved in photorespiration. In C3 plants, at 20% O2, 0.035% CO2, and 208C, two out of ten RuBP molecules are oxygenated, rather than carboxylated. The oxygenation reaction produces phosphoglycolate (GLL-P), which is dephosphorylated to glycolate (GLL). Glycolate is subsequently metabolized in peroxisomes and mitochondria, in which glyoxylate

17

(GLX) and the amino acids glycine (GLY) and serine (SER) play a role. Serine is exported from the mitochondria and converted to hydroxypyruvate (OH-PYR) and then glycerate (GLR) in the peroxisomes, after which it returns to the chloroplast (after Ogren 1984). Reprinted with kind permission from the Annual Review of Plant Physiology, Vol. 35, copyright 1984, by Annual Reviews Inc.

18

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 6. The relationship between the rate of net CO2 assimilation (An) and the CO2 concentration at the site of Rubisco in the chloroplasts (Cc) for a C3 leaf: the ‘‘demand function’’. The concentration at which An ¼ 0 is the CO2-compensation point (). The rate of diffusion of CO2 from the atmosphere to the intercellular spaces and to Rubisco in the chloroplast is given by the ‘‘supply functions’’ (the red and blue lines). The slopes of these lines are the leaf conductance (gL) and mesophyll

conductance (gm), respectively. The intersection of the ‘‘supply functions’’ with the ‘‘demand function’’ is the actual rate of net CO2 assimilation at a value of Ci and Cc that occurs in the leaf intercellular spaces (Ci) and at the site of Rubisco (Cc) for Ca in normal air (indicated by the vertical line). The difference in An described by the demand function and the two horizontal lines depicts the degree of limitation imposed by the mesophyll resistance and leaf resistance.

with values for  in the range 40—50 mmol (CO2) mol—1 (air) (at 258C and atmospheric pressure). Two regions of the CO2-response curve above the compensation point can be distinguished. At low Cc, that is below values normally found in leaves (approximately 165 mmol mol—1), photosynthesis increases steeply with increasing CO2 concentration. This is the region where CO2 limits the rate of functioning of Rubisco, whereas RuBP is present in saturating quantities (RuBP-saturated or CO2limited region). This part of the An—Cc relationship is also referred to as the initial slope or the carboxylation efficiency. At light saturation and with a fully activated enzyme (Sect. 3.4.2 for details on ‘‘activation’’), the initial slope governs the carboxylation capacity of the leaf which in turn depends on the amount of active Rubisco. In the region at high Cc, the increase in An with increasing Cc levels off. CO2 no longer restricts the carboxylation reaction, but now the rate at which RuBP becomes available limits the activity of Rubisco (RuBP-limited region). This rate, in turn, depends on the activity of the Calvin cycle, which ultimately depends on the rate at which ATP and

NADPH are produced in the light reactions; in this region, photosynthetic rates are limited by the rate of electron transport. This may be due to limitation by light or, at light saturation, by a limited capacity of electron transport (Box 2A.1). Even at a high Cc, in the region where the rate of electron transport, J, no longer increases with increasing Cc, the rate of net CO2 assimilation continues to increase slightly, because the oxygenation reaction of Rubisco is increasingly suppressed with increasing CO2 concentration, in favor of the carboxylation reaction. At a normal atmospheric concentration of CO2 (Ca) and O2 (ca. 380 and 210000 mmol mol—1, respectively) and at a temperature of 208C, the ratio between the carboxylation and oxygenation reaction is about 4:1. How exactly this ratio and various other parameters of the An—Cc curve can be assessed is further explained in Box 2A.1. Typically, plants operate at a Cc where CO2 and electron transport co-limit the rate of CO2 assimilation (i.e., the point where the Rubisco-limited/RuBP-saturated and the RuBPlimited part of the CO2-response curve intersect). This allows effective utilization of all components of the light and dark reactions.

General Characteristics of the Photosynthetic Apparatus

19

Box 2A.1 Modeling C3 Photosynthesisis Based on known biochemical characteristics of Rubisco and the requirement of NADPH2 and ATP for CO2 assimilation, Farquhar et al. (1980) developed a model of photosynthesis in C3 plants. This model was recently updated, based on the CO2 concentration in the chloroplast (Cc) rather than the intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) (Sharkey et al. 2007). It is widely used in ecophysiological research and more recently also in global change modeling. The model elegantly demonstrates that basic principles of the biochemistry of photosynthesis explain physiological properties of photosynthesis of intact leaves. Net CO2 assimilation (An) is the result of the rate of carboxylation (Vc) minus photorespiration and other respiratory processes. In photorespiration, one CO2 molecule is produced per two oxygenation reactions (Vo) (Fig. 5). The rate of dark respiration during photosynthesis may differ from dark respiration at night, and is called ‘‘day respiration’’ (Rday): An ¼ Vc  0:5Vo  Rday

(1)

CO2-limited and O2-limited rates of carboxylation and oxygenation are described with standard Michaelis—Menten kinetics. When both substrates are present, however, they competi-

tively inhibit each other. An effective Michaelis— Menten constant for the carboxylation reaction (Km) that takes into account competitive inhibition by O2 is described as Km ¼ Kc ð1 þ O=Ko Þ

(2)

where Kc and Ko are the Michaelis—Menten constants for the carboxylation and oxygenation reaction, respectively, and O is the oxygen concentration. The rate of carboxylation in the CO2-limited part of the CO2-response curve (Fig. 1) can then be described as Vc ¼

Vcmax  Cc Cc þ Km

(3)

where Vcmax is the rate of CO2 assimilation at saturating Cc (note that the subscript ‘‘max’’ refers to the rate at saturating Cc). The ratio of oxygenation and carboxylation depends on the specificity of Rubisco for CO2 relative to O2 (Sc/o) which varies widely among photosynthetic organisms (Von Caemmerer 2000), but much less so among C3 higher plants (Galme´s et al. 2005). Increasing temperature, however, decreases the specificity, because Ko decreases faster with increasing temperature than Kc does (Fig. 35).

FIGURE 1. The response of net photosynthesis (An) to the CO2 concentration in the chloroplast (Cc) at 258C and light saturation (solid black line). Calculations were made as explained in the text, with values for Vcmax, Jmax, and Rday of 90, 117, and 1 mmol m–2 s–1, respectively. The lower part of the AnCc relationship (Ac; red line) is limited by the carboxylation capacity (Vcmax) and the upper part (Aj; green line) by the electron-transport capacity (Jmax; blue line). The rate of electron transport (J/4; blue line) is also shown.

continued

20

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

Box 2A.1 Continued The CO2-compensation point in the absence of Rday (*) depends on the specificity factor and the O2 concentration (O):  ¼ 0:5 O=ðSc=o  Sc =So Þ

(4)

* increases more strongly with rising temperature than would be expected from the decrease in Sc/o because the solubility in water for CO2 (Sc) decreases more with increasing temperature than does that for O2 (So). * shows little variation among C3 angiosperms as follows from the similarity of Sc/o. * is determined experimentally and used to calculate the ratio of carboxylation and oxygenation as dependent on CO2: Vo =Vc ¼ 2 =Cc

(5)

thus avoiding the need for incorporating the specificity factor and solubilities (Equation 4). In the RuBP-limited part of the CO2-response curve (Fig. 1.1), the rate of electron transport (J) is constant. Increasing Cc increases the rate of carboxylation at the expense of the rate of oxygenation. There is a minimum requirement of four electrons per carboxylation or oxygenation reaction. Hence, the minimum electron transport rate (J) required for particular rates of carboxylation and oxygenation is J ¼ 4ðVc þ Vo Þ

(6)

At light saturation, J is limited by the capacity of electron transport and is called Jmax. Using Equations (5) and (6), the rate of carboxylation can then be expressed as Vc ¼ J=f4ð1 þ 2 =Cc Þg

(7)

The CO2-limited and RuBP-saturated rate of photosynthesis (Ac) can then be calculated using Equations (1), (3), and (5) as Vcmax ðCc   Þ Ac ¼  Rday Cc þ Km

(8)

The RuBP-limited rate of photosynthesis (Aj) can be calculated using Equations (1), (5), and (7) as Aj ¼

JðCc   Þ  Rday 4ðCc þ 2 Þ

(9)

The minimum of Equations (8) and (9) describes the full CO2-response curve as shown in Fig. 1.

In the above equations, gas concentrations are expressed as molar fraction (mol mol—1). If required, partial pressure can be converted to molar fraction by dividing it by total air pressure. The CO2 conductance for CO2 diffusion in the mesophyll (gm) can only be calculated when the concentration in the chloroplast (Cc) is known. gm can then be calculated from Ci as An =gm ¼ Ci  Cc

(10)

Information about gm may not always be available. As an approximation, the same model can be used assuming that Cc¼ Ci. Parameter values specific for that scenario should then be used (see below). Parameter values for the above equations are normally given for 258C. Values for other temperatures can be calculated from their temperature dependencies, as described by the generic equation: parameter ¼ exp ðc  DH  =R T L Þ

(11)

Where TL is leaf temperature (K), R is the molar gas constant, c is a dimensionless constant, and DH is the activation energy (kJ mol—1). Parameter values estimated for Nicotiana tabacum(tobacco) for the CO2 response at 258C, an atmospheric pressure, of 99.1 kPa, and an infinite (Cc ¼ Ci) and a finite gm, together with the temperature dependencies for the latter scenario (Bernacchi et al. 2001, 2002) are

Cc ¼ Ci CO2 response parameter * (mmol mol1) Kc (mmol mol1) Ko (mmol mol1)

finite gm (Cc < Ci)

at 258C

at 258C

c

DHa

42.75

37.43

19.02

24.46

404.9

272.4

38.28

80.99

278.4

165.8

14.68

23.72

Temperature dependencies of model parameters describing the rates of metabolic processes that are leaf specific (Jmax, Vmax, Rday) are calculated in a similar manner, but Equation (11) must then be multiplied by the rates at 258C. For constants and activation energies, see Bernacchi et al. (2001, 2003).

continued

General Characteristics of the Photosynthetic Apparatus

Box 2A.1 Continued Values of Cc depend on the balance between supply and demand for CO2. The demand function is described above; the supply function is described in Sect. 2.2.2. Electron-transport rates depend on irradiance (Sect. 3.2.1), where the

2.2.2 Supply of CO2—Stomatal and Boundary Layer Conductances The supply of CO2 by way of its diffusion from the surrounding atmosphere to the intercellular spaces (this CO2 concentration is denoted as Ci) and to the site of carboxylation in the chloroplasts (this CO2 concentration is described as Cc) represents a limitation for the rate of photosynthesis. The magnitude of the limitation can be read from the An—Cc curve as the difference in photosynthetic rate at Ca and Ci and Cc, respectively (Fig. 6). To analyze diffusion limitations it is convenient to use the term resistance, because resistances can be summed to arrive at the total resistance for the pathway. When considering fluxes, however, it is more convenient to use conductance, which is the reciprocal of resistance, because the flux varies in proportion to the conductance. In a steady state, the rate of net CO2 assimilation (An) equals the rate of CO2 diffusion into the leaf. The rate of CO2 diffusion can be described by Fick’s first law. Hence: An ¼ gc ðCa  Cc Þ ¼ ðCa  Cc Þ=rc

(1)

where, gc is the leaf conductance for CO2 transport; Ca and Cc are the mole or volume fractions of CO2 in air at the site of carboxylation and in air, respectively; rc is the inverse of gc (i.e., the leaf resistance for CO2 transport). The leaf conductance for CO2 transport, gc, can be derived from measurements on leaf transpiration, which can also be described by Fick’s first law in a similar way: E ¼ gw ðwi  wa Þ ¼ ðwi  wa Þrw

(2)

where gw is the leaf conductance for water vapor transport; wi and wa are the mole or volume fractions of water vapor in air in the intercellular spaces and in air, respectively; rw is the inverse of gw (i.e., the leaf resistance for water vapor transport); and E is the rate of leaf transpiration. E can be measured directly. The water vapor concentration in the leaf can be calculated from measurements of the leaf’s

21

equation describing net CO2 assimilation as a function of irradiance can be used to calculate J by substituting J and Jmax for An and Amax, respectively. A combination of these mathematical equations makes it possible to model C3 photosynthesis over a wide range of environmental conditions.

temperature, assuming a saturated water vapor pressure inside the leaf. Under most conditions this is a valid assumption. Therefore, the leaf conductance for water vapor transport can be determined. The total leaf resistance for water vapor transfer, rw, is largely composed of two components that are in series: the boundary layer resistance, ra, and the stomatal resistance, rs. The boundary layer is the thin layer of air adjacent to the leaf that is modified by the leaf (Fig. 6 in Chapter 4A on the plant’s energy balance). Turbulence is greatly reduced there, and transport is largely via diffusion. Its limit is commonly defined as the point at which the properties of the air are 99% of the values in ambient air. The boundary layer resistance can be estimated by measuring the rate of evaporation from a water-saturated piece of filter paper of exactly the same shape and size as that of the leaf. Conditions that affect the boundary layer, such as wind speed, should be identical to those during measurements of the leaf resistance. The stomatal resistance for water vapor transfer (rs) can now be calculated since rw and ra are known: r w ¼ ra þ rs

(3)

The resistance for CO2 transport (rc) across boundary layer and stomata can be calculated from rw, taking into account that the diffusion coefficients of the two molecules differ. The ratio H2O diffusion/CO2 diffusion in air is approximately 1.6, because water is smaller and diffuses more rapidly than CO2. This value pertains only to the movement of CO2 inside the leaf air spaces and through the stomata. For the boundary layer above the leaf, where both turbulence and diffusion influence flux, the ratio is approximately 1.37. rc ¼ ðra :1:37Þ þ ðrs :1:6Þ ¼ 1=gc

(4)

Ci can now be calculated from Equation (1), after substitution of Ci for Cc. If calculated according to this, Ci is the CO2 concentration at the point where evaporation occurs inside the leaf (i.e., largely the mesophyll cell walls bordering the substomatal

22

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

cavity), but higher than Cc, the CO2 concentration at the point where Rubisco assimilates CO2 (Sect. 2.2.3). In C3 plants, Ci is generally maintained at around 250 mmol mol—1, but may increase to higher values at a low irradiance and higher humidity of the air, and decrease to lower values at high irradiance, low water availability, and low air humidity. For C4 plants, Ci is around 100 mmol mol—1 (Osmond et al. 1982). Under most conditions, the stomatal conductance is considerably less than the boundary layer conductance (ga is up to 10 mol m—2 s—1, at wind speeds of up to 5 m s—1; gs has values of up to 1 mol m—2 s—1 at high stomatal density and widely open stomata), so that stomatal conductance strongly influences CO2 diffusion into the leaf. For large leaves in still humid air, where the boundary layer is thick, however, the situation is opposite.

2.2.3 The Mesophyll Conductance For the transport of CO2 from the substomatal cavity to the chloroplast, a mesophyll conductance (also called internal conductance), gm (or resistance, rm)

should be considered. Hence, we can describe the net rate of net CO2 assimilation by An ¼ ðCa  Cc Þ=ðra þ rs þ rm Þ

(5)

Until fairly recently, the mesophyll conductance has been assumed to be large and has often been ignored in analyses of gas-exchange measurements. However, recent evidence shows that this is not justified (Warren 2007, Flexas et al. 2008). In addition, we have come to realize that gm changes with environmental conditions, and often quite rapidly, compared with changes in stomatal conductance (Flexas et al. 2007a, Warren 2007). Two types of measurements are commonly employed for the estimation of Cc, which is subsequently used to calculate gm. Carbon-isotope fractionation (Box 2A.2) during gas exchange, and simultaneous measurement of chlorophyll fluorescence and gas exchange. The two methods rely on a number of assumptions that are largely independent, but they yield similar results (Evans & Loreto 2000). From the estimates made so far, it appears that gm is of similar magnitude as gs; whilst gm is generally somewhat higher, the opposite can also be observed (Galme´s et al. 2007). Consequently, Cc is

Box 2A.2 Fractionation of Carbon Isotopes in Plants CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is composed of different carbon isotopes. The majority is 12CO2; approximately 1% of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 13CO2; a much smaller fraction is the radioactive species 14CO2 (which will not be dealt with in the present context). Modern ecophysiological research makes abundant use of the fact that the isotope composition of plant biomass differs from that of the atmosphere. Carbon isotopes are a crucial tool in estimating time-integrated measures of photosynthetic performance of individual plants or plant communities, information that would be difficult or impossible to obtain from direct physiological measurements. It is of special interest that carbon-isotope composition differs among plants that differ in photosynthetic pathway or water-use efficiency. How can we account for that? The molar abundance ratio, R, of the two carbon isotopes is the ratio between 13C and 12C. The

constants K12 and K13 refer to the rate of processes and reactions in which 12C and 13C participate, respectively. The ‘‘isotope effect’’ is described as Rsource =Rproduct ¼ k12 =k13

(1)

For plants, the isotope effect is, to a small extent, due to the slower diffusion in air of 13 CO2, when compared with that of the lighter isotope 12CO2 (1.0044 times slower; during diffusion in water, there is little fractionation) (Table 1). The isotope effect is largely due to the biochemical properties of Rubisco, which reacts more readily with 12CO2 than it does with 13CO2. As a result, Rubisco discriminates against the heavy isotope. For Rubisco from Spinacia oleracea(spinach), the discrimination is 30.3%, whereas smaller values are found for this enzyme from bacteria (Guy et al. 1993).

continued

General Characteristics of the Photosynthetic Apparatus

Box 2A.2 Continued

13 C ð%o Þ ¼ ðRsample =Rstandard  1Þ  1000 (4)

TABLE 1. The magnitude of fractionation during CO2 uptake. Process or enzyme Diffusion in air Diffusion through the boundary layer Dissolution of CO2 Diffusion of aqueous CO2 CO2 and HCO3 in equilibrium CO2 - HCO3 catalyzed by carbonic anhydrase HCO3 - CO2 in water, catalyzed by carbonic anhydrase PEP carboxylase Combined process Rubisco

23

Fractionation (%)

Values for D13 C and 13 C are related as D ¼ ðsource  plant Þ= ð1 þ plant Þ

where source ffi 8% if the source is air (air) (to be entered as 0.008 in Equation (5); a  pl value of 27%, therefore, converts to a D value of 19.5%). The standard is a cretaceous limestone consisting mostly of the fossil carbonate skeletons of Belemnitella americana (referred to as PDBbelemnite). By definition, it has a 13 C value equal to 0%. Plant 13 C values are negative, because they are depleted in 13C compared with the fossil standard. Diffusion and carboxylation discriminate against 13CO2; -values for C3 plants are approx. 27%, showing that Rubisco is the predominant factor accounting for the observed values and that diffusion is less important. For C4 plants, the following empirical equation has been derived:

4.4 2.9 1.1 0.7 –8.5 at 308C –9.0 at 258C 1.1 at 258C 10.1 at 258C

2.2 –5.2 at 308C –5.7 at 258C 30 at 258C

Source: Henderson et al. 1992.

D ¼ 4:4 þ ½5:7 þ ð30  1:8Þf  4:4 Ci =Ca On the path from intercellular spaces to Rubisco a number of additional steps take place, where some isotope fractionation can occur. Taken together, the isotope effect in C3 plants is approximated by the empirical equation (Farquhar et al. 1982): Ra =Rp ¼ 1:0044 ½ðCa  Ci Þ=Ca  þ 1:027 Ci =Ca (2) where Ra and Rp are the molar abundance ratios of the atmospheric CO2 and of the C fixed by the plant, respectively; the symbols Ca and Ci are the atmospheric and the intercellular partial pressure of CO2, respectively. The value 1.027 is an empirical value, incorporating the major fractionation by Rubisco, as well as accounting for the internal diffusion resistance for CO2 (gm). Since values for Ra/Rp appear rather ‘‘clumsy,’’ data are commonly expressed as fractionation values, D (‘‘capital delta’’), defined as (Ra/Rp — 1)  1000, or: D ¼ ½ð1:0044 Ca  1:0044 Ci þ 1:027 Ci Þ=Ca   1 ¼ ½ð1:0044 Ca þ 0:0226 Ci Þ=Ca   1

(5)

(3)

¼ ð4:4 þ 22:6 Ci =Ca Þ  103 The isotope composition is described as 13 C (‘‘lower case delta’’):

(6)

where f refers to the leakage of CO2 from the bundle sheath to the mesophyll. Where do these equations lead us? Within C 3 plants the 13 C of whole-plant biomass gives a better indication of C i over a longer time interval than can readily be obtained from gas-exchange measurements. The value of Ci in itself is a reflection of stomatal conductance (gs ), relative to photosynthetic activity (A). As such, 13C provides information on a plant’s water-use efficiency (WUE) (Sect. 5.2). How do we arrive there? As can be derived from Equation (3), the extent of the fractionation of carbon isotopes depends on the intercellular partial pressures of CO 2, relative to that in the atmosphere. If Ci is high, g s is large relative to A, and much of the 13CO2 discriminated against by Rubisco diffuses back to the atmosphere; hence the fractionation is large. If Ci is low, then relatively more of the accumulated 13CO2 is fixed by Rubisco, and therefore the fractionation of the overall photosynthesis process is less. Comparison of WUE calculated on the basis of 13C is only valid at constant vapor pressure difference (Dw) and is called intrinsic WUE (A/g s ).

continued

24

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

Box 2A.2 Continued Under many situations 13C is a good proxy for WUE and it can be used for, e.g., paleoclimatic studies and genetic screening for drought-tolerant varieties. However, under conditions where Dw varies or gs and gm are not strongly correlated, 13C may not be a good predictor of WUE. Carbon-isotope fractionation values differ between C3, C4, and CAM species (Sects. 9 and 10). In C4 plants, little of the 13CO2 that is discriminated against by Rubisco diffuses back to the atmosphere. This is prevented, first, by the diffusion barrier between the vascular bundle sheath and the mesophyll cells. Second, the mesophyll cells contain PEP carboxylase, which scavenges most of the CO2 that escapes from the bundle sheath (Table 1). Fractionation during photosynthesis in C4 plants is therefore dominated by fractionation during diffusion (4.4%). There is also little fractionation in CAM plants, where the heavy isotopes discriminated against cannot readily diffuse out of the leaves because the stomata are closed for most of the day. The actual 13C of CAM plant biomass depends on the fractions of the carbon fixed by CAM and C3 photosynthesis. Aquatic plants show relatively little fractionation, due to unstirred layers surrounding the leaf, rather than to a different photosynthetic pathway (Sect. 11.6). The unstirred boundary layers cause diffusion to be a major limitation for their photosynthesis, so that fractionation in these

substantially lower than Ci(the CO2 concentration in the intercellular spaces); a difference of about 80 mmol mol—1is common, as compared with Ca—Ci of about 100 mmol mol—1. The mesophyll conductance varies widely among species and correlates with the photosynthetic capacity (Amax) of the leaf (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the relationship between mesophyll conductance and photosynthesis is rather similar for scleromorphic and mesophytic leaves, but scleromorphs tend to have a somewhat larger draw-down of CO2 between intercellular space and chloroplast (Ci—Cc) (Warren & Adams 2006). The mesophyll conductance is a complicated trait, involving diffusion of CO2 in the intercellular spaces in the gas phase, dissolving of CO2 in the liquid phase, conversion of CO2 into HCO3 catalyzed by carbonic anhydrase, and diffusion in the

plants tends toward the value found for the diffusion process (Fig. 1).

FIGURE 1. The relationship between the ratio of the internal and the atmospheric CO2 concentration, at a constant Ca of 340 mmol mol–1. Data for both C3 and C4 species are presented; the lines are drawn on the basis of a number of assumptions, relating to the extent of leakage of CO2 from the bundle sheath back to the mesophyll (Evans et al. 1986, Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 13: 281–292). Copyright CSIRO, Australia.

liquid phase and across membranes. The resistance in the gas phase is low and is considered as normally not a limiting factor (Bernacchi et al. 2002). Diffusion in the liquid phase is much slower (104 times less), and the path length is minimized by chloroplast position against the cell wall opposite intercellular spaces (Fig. 1). This component likely represents a large fraction of total rm, and carbonic anhydrase is important for minimizing it (Gillon & Yakir 2000). Evidence for an important role for the area of chloroplasts bordering intercellular spaces as a determinant of gm stems from a positive relationship with this parameter per unit leaf area (Evans & Loreto 2000). Data about a similar parameter, chloroplast area per leaf area, are more widely available and vary by an order of magnitude among species (Table 1) which is likely associated with gm. There

General Characteristics of the Photosynthetic Apparatus

25

FIGURE 7. The relationship between the rate of photosynthesis (An) and maximum mesophyll conductance (gm), determined for a wide range of species. Values for scleromorphic leaves are at most 0.21 mol m–2 s–1 bar–1 (gm) and 22.9 mmol m–2 s–1 (An), whereas those for mesomorphic leaves span the entire range shown here. The units of conductance as used in this graph differ from those used elsewhere in this text. The reason is

that when CO2 is dissolving to reach the sites of carboxylation, the amount depends on the partial pressure of CO2 and conductance has the units used in this graph. For air space conductance the units could be the same as used elsewhere: mol m–2 s–1, if CO2 is given as a mole fraction (based on data compiled in Flexas et al. 2008). Courtesy, J. Flexas, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca, Balears, Spain.

is evidence that specific aquaporins facilitate transport of CO2 across membranes. Their role in the transport of CO2 might account for rapid modulation of gm in response to environmental factors such as temperature, CO2, and desiccation (Flexas et al. 2006a). The mesophyll conductance is proportional to chloroplast surface area within a given functional group. The difference in gm between functional groups is associated with mesophyll cell wall

thickness, which varies from 0.1 mm in annuals, 0.2—0.3 mm in deciduous, broad-leaved species, and 0.3—0.5 mm in evergreen, broad-leaved species (Terashima et al. 2006). When stomatal and mesophyll conductance are considered in conjunction with the assimilation of CO2, the ‘‘supply function’’ (Equation 1) tends to intersect the ‘‘demand function’’ in the region where carboxylation and electron transport are co-limiting (Fig. 6).

TABLE 1. The area of the chloroplast in palisade (P) and spongy (S) mesophyll (Areachlor) expressed per unit leaf area (Arealeaf) for species from the mountain range of the East Pamirs, Tadjikistan (3500–4500 m).* (Areachlor) /Arealeaf

Perennial dicotyledonous herbs (54) Cushion plants (4) Dwarf semishrubs (12) Subshrubs (8)

P

S

PþS

Lowest (PþS)

Highest (PþS)

12 20 16 9

9 11 6 7

18 26 21 15

3 12 5 7

41 40 48 24

Source: Pyankov & Kondratchuk (1995, 1998). The number of investigated species is given in brackets. The sum P+S differs from PþS, because data pertain to both dorsiventral (PþS) and isopalisade (P) species. *

26

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

3. Response of Photosynthesis to Light The level of irradiance is an important ecological factor on which all photo-autotrophic plants depend. Only the photosynthetically active part of the spectrum (PAR; 400—700 nm) directly drives photosynthesis. Other effects of radiation pertain to the photoperiod, which triggers flowering and other developmental phenomena in many species, the direction of the light, and the spectral quality, characterized by the red/far-red ratio, which is of major importance for many aspects of morphogenesis. These effects are discussed in Chapter 7 on growth and allocation and Chapter 8 on life cycles; effects of infrared radiation are discussed in Chapter 4A on the plant’s energy balance and its significance through temperature effects on photosynthesis in Sect. 7. Effects of ultraviolet radiation are treated briefly in Sect. 2.2 of Chapter 4B on effects of radiation and temperature. Low light intensities pose stresses on plants because irradiance limits photosynthesis and thus net carbon gain and plant growth. Responses of the photosynthetic apparatus to shade can be at two levels: either at the structural level, or at the level of the biochemistry in chloroplasts. Leaf anatomy, and structure and biochemistry of the photosynthetic apparatus are treated in Sect. 3.2.2; aspects of morphology at the whole plant level are discussed in Sect. 5.1 of Chapter 7 on growth and allocation. High light intensities may also be a stress for plants, causing damage to the photosynthetic apparatus, particularly if other factors are not optimal. The kind of damage to the photosynthetic apparatus that may occur and the mechanisms of plants to cope with excess irradiance are treated in Sect. 3.3. To analyze the response of photosynthesis to irradiance, we distinguish between the dynamic response of photosynthesis to light (or any other environmental factor) and the steady-state response. A steady-state response is achieved after exposure of a leaf to constant irradiance for some time until a constant response is reached. Dynamic responses are the result of perturbations of steadystate conditions due to sudden changes in light conditions resulting in changes in photosynthetic rates. Certain genotypes have characteristics that are adaptive in a shady environment (shade-adapted plants). In addition, all plants have the capability to acclimate to a shady environment, to a greater or lesser extent, and form a shade plant phenotype (shade form). The term shade plant may therefore refer to an ‘‘adapted’’ genotype or an ‘‘acclimated’’

phenotype. Similarly, the term sun plant normally refers to a plant grown in high-light conditions, but is also used to indicate a shade-avoiding species or ecotype. The terms sun leaf and shade leaf are used more consistently; they refer to leaves that have developed at high and low irradiance, respectively.

3.1 The Light Climate Under a Leaf Canopy The average irradiance decreases exponentially through the plant canopy, with the extent of light attenuation depending on both the amount and arrangement of leaves (Monsi & Saeki 1953, 2005): I ¼ Io ekL

(6)

where I is the irradiance beneath the canopy; Io is the irradiance at the top of the canopy; k is the extinction coefficient; and L is the leaf area index (total leaf area per unit ground area). The extinction coefficient is low for vertically inclined leaves (for example 0.3—0.5 for grasses), higher for a more horizontal leaf arrangement, and approaching 1.0 for randomly distributed, small, perfectly horizontal leaves. A clumped leaf arrangement and deviating leaf angles result in intermediary values for k. A low extinction coefficient allows more effective light transfer through canopies dominated by these plants. Leaves are more vertically inclined in highlight than in cloudy or shaded environments. This minimizes the probability of photoinhibition and increases light penetration to lower leaves in highlight environments, thereby maximizing wholecanopy photosynthesis (Terashima & Hikosaka 1995). Values for leaf area index range from less than 1 in sparsely vegetated communities like deserts or tundra to 5—7 for crops to 5—10 for forests (Schulze et al. 1994). The spectral composition of shade light differs from that above a canopy, due to the selective absorption of photosynthetically active radiation by leaves. Transmittance of photosynthetically active radiation is typically less than 10%, whereas transmittance of far-red (FR, 730 nm) light is substantial (Fig. 6 in Chapter 8 on life cycles). As a result, the ratio of red (R, 660 nm) to far-red (the R/FR ratio) is lower in canopy shade. This affects the photoequilibrium of phytochrome, a pigment that allows a plant to perceive shading by other plants (Box 7.2), and requires adjustment of the photosynthetic apparatus. Another characteristic of the light climate in and under a leaf canopy is that direct sunlight may arrive as ‘‘packages’’ of high intensity: sunflecks.

Response of Photosynthesis to Light

27

So there are short spells of high irradiance against a background of a low irradiance. Such sunflecks are due to the flutter of leaves, movement of branches and the changing angle of the sun. Their duration ranges from less than a second to minutes. Sunflecks typically have lower irradiance than direct sunlight due to penumbral effects, but large sunflecks (those greater than an angular size of 0.5 degrees) can approach irradiances of direct sunlight (Chazdon & Pearcy 1991).

3.2 Physiological, Biochemical, and Anatomical Differences Between Sun and Shade Leaves Shade leaves exhibit a number of traits that make them quite distinct from leaves that developed in full daylight. We first discuss these traits and then some of the problems that may arise in leaves from exposure to high irradiance. In the last section we discuss signals and transduction pathways that allow the formation of sun vs. shade leaves.

3.2.1 The Light-Response Curve of Sun and Shade Leaves The steady-state rate of CO2 assimilation increases asymptotically with increasing irradiance. Below the light-compensation point (An ¼ 0), there is insufficient light to compensate for respiratory carbon loss due to photorespiration and dark respiration (Fig. 8). At low light intensities, An increases linearly with irradiance, with the light-driven electron transport limiting photosynthesis. The initial slope of the light-response curve based on absorbed light (quantum yield) describes the efficiency with which light is converted into fixed carbon (typically about 0.06 moles CO2 fixed per mole of quanta under favorable conditions and a normal atmospheric CO2 concentration). When the lightresponse curve is based on incident light, the leaf’s absorptance also determines the quantum yield; this initial slope is called the apparent quantum yield. At high irradiance, photosynthesis becomes lightsaturated and is limited by carboxylation rate, which is governed by some combination of CO2 diffusion into the leaf and carboxylation capacity. The shape of the light-response curve can be satisfactorily described by a nonrectangular hyperbola (Fig. 9): An ¼

fI þ Amax 

p

fðfI þ Amax Þ2  4  fmax g  Rd 2

(7)

FIGURE 8. Typical response of net photosynthesis to irradiance, drawn according to Equation (7) in the text. The intercept with the x-axis is the light-compensation point (LCP), the initial slope of the line gives the quantum yield (f) and the intercept with the y-axis is the rate of dark respiration (Rd). The curvature of the line is described by q. At low irradiance, the rate of CO2 assimilation is lightlimited; at higher irradiance An is carboxylation limited. Amax is the light-saturated rate of CO2 assimilation at ambient Ca.

where Amax is the light-saturated rate of gross CO2 assimilation (net rate of CO2 assimilation þ dark respiration) at infinitely high irradiance,  is the (apparent) quantum yield (on the basis of either incident or absorbed photons),  is the curvature factor, which can vary between 0 and 1, and Rd is the dark respiration during photosynthesis. The Equation can also be used to describe the light dependence of electron transport, when A is then replaced by J and Amax by Jmax (Box 2A.1). This mathematical description is useful because it contains variables with a clear physiological meaning that can be derived from light-response curves and used to model photosynthesis. Sun leaves differ from shade leaves primarily in their higher light-saturated rates of photosynthesis (Amax) (Fig. 9). The rate of dark respiration typically covaries with Amax. The initial slope of the lightresponse curves of light-acclimated and shade-acclimated plants (the quantum yield) is the same, except when shade-adapted plants become inhibited or damaged at high irradiance (photoinhibition or photodestruction) which reduces the quantum yield. The apparent quantum yield (i.e., based on incident photon irradiance) may also vary with variation in absorptance due to differences in chlorophyll concentration per unit leaf area. This is typically not important in the case of acclimation to light (Sect. 3.2.3), but cannot be ignored when factors such as nutrient availability and senescence

28

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 9. Photosynthesis as a function of irradiance for different species and growing conditions. Light acclima¨ tion: (A) for Atriplex triangularis (Bjorkman 1981) and (B) for a thin algal culture (Coccomyxa sp.) grown at different levels of irradiance 100, 400, or 600 mmol m–2 s–1 (B) note the difference in ‘‘curvature’’, for which the

 values (Equation 6) are given in B, between the three ¨ curves (after Ogren 1993). Copyright American Society of Plant Biologists. Light adaptation: (C) for species which naturally occur at a high, intermediate, or low ¨ irradiance (after Bjorkman 1981).

play a role. The transition from the light-limited part to the light-saturated plateau is generally abrupt in shade leaves, but more gradual in sun leaves (higher Amax and lower  in sun leaves). Although shade leaves typically have a low Amax, they have lower light-compensation points and higher rates of

photosynthesis at low light because of their lower respiration rates per unit leaf area (Fig. 9). Just as in acclimation, most plants that have evolved under conditions of high light have higher light-saturated rates of photosynthesis (Amax), higher light-compensation points, and lower rates

Response of Photosynthesis to Light of photosynthesis at low light than do shadeadapted plants when grown under the same conditions.

3.2.2 Anatomy and Ultrastructure of Sun and Shade Leaves One mechanism by which sun-grown plants, or sun leaves on a plant, achieve a high Amax (Fig. 9) is by producing thicker leaves (Fig. 10) which provides space for more chloroplasts per unit leaf area. The increased thickness is largely due to the formation of longer palisade cells in the mesophyll and, in species that have this capacity, the development of multiple palisade layers in sun leaves (Hanson 1917). Plants that naturally occur in high-light environments (e.g., grasses, Eucalyptus and Hakea species) may have palisade parenchyma on both sides of the leaf (Fig. 10). Such leaves are naturally positioned (almost) vertically, so that both sides of the leaf receive a high irradiance. Anatomy constrains the potential of leaves to acclimate, e.g., the acclimation potential of shade leaves to a high-light environment is limited by the space in mesophyll cells bordering intercellular spaces (Oguchi et al. 2005). Full acclimation to a new light environment, therefore, typically requires the production of new leaves. The spongy mesophyll in dorsiventral leaves of dicotyledons increases the path length of light in

FIGURE 10. Light-microscopic transverse sections of sun and shade leaves of two species: (Top) Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) and (Bottom) Chenopodium album (pigweed). Note that the sun leaves of Arabidopsis thaliana have two cell layers for the palisade tissue while those of Chenopodium album have only one layer. Shade leaves of both species have only one cell layer. Scale bar ¼ 100 mm (courtesy S. Yano, National Institute for Basic Biology, Okazaki, Japan).

29 leaves by reflection at the gas-liquid interfaces of these irregularly oriented cells. The relatively large proportion of spongy mesophyll in shade leaves therefore enhances leaf absorptance, due to the greater internal light scattering (Vogelmann et al. 1996). When air spaces of shade leaves of Hydrophyllum canadense (broad-leaved waterleaf) or Asarum canadense (Canadian wild-ginger) are infiltrated with mineral oil to eliminate this phenomenon, light absorptance at 550 and 750 nm is reduced by 25 and 30%, respectively (Fig. 11). In sun leaves, which have relatively less spongy mesophyll, the effect of infiltration with oil is much smaller. The optical path length in leaves ranges from 0.9 to 2.7 times that of an equivalent amount of pigment in water, greatly increasing the effectiveness of light absorption in thin leaves of shade plants (Ru¨hle & Wild 1979). Leaves of obligate shade plants, as can for instance be found in the understory of a tropical rainforest, may have specialized anatomical structures that enhance light absorption even further. Epidermal and sub-epidermal cells may act as lenses that concentrate light on chloroplasts in a thin layer of mesophyll. There are fewer chloroplasts per unit area in shade leaves as compared with sun leaves due to the reduced thickness of mesophyll. The ultrastructure of the chloroplasts of sun and shade leaves shows distinct differences (Fig. 12). Shade

30

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 11. (A) Light absorptance in a shade leaf of Hydrophyllum canadense (broad-leaved waterleaf). The solid line gives the absorptance of a control leaf. The broken line shows a leaf infiltrated with mineral oil, which reduces light scattering. The difference between the two

lines is given as the thick solid line. (B) The difference in absorptance between an oil-infiltrated leaf and a control leaf of Acer saccharum (sugar maple). The solid line gives the difference for a shade leaf, the broken line for a sun leaf (after DeLucia et al. 1996).

FIGURE 12. Electron micrographs of chloroplasts in sun (A–C) and shade (D–F) leaves of Schefflera arboricola (dwarf umbrella plant). Chloroplasts found in upper palisade parenchyma tissue (A, D), lower palisade parenchyma tissue (B, E) and spongy mesophyll tissue (C, F). Note the difference in grana between sun and shade leaves and between the upper and lower layer inside the leaf. Scale bar ¼ 0.2 mm (courtesy A.M. Syme and C. Critchley, Department of Botany, The University of Queensland, Australia).

Response of Photosynthesis to Light

31

Box 2A.3 Carbon–Fixation and Light–Absorption Profiles Inside Leaves We are already familiar with differences in biochemistry and physiology between sun and shade leaves (Sect. 3.2). If we consider the gradient in the level of irradiance inside a leaf, however, then should we not expect similar differences within leaves? Indeed, palisade mesophyll cells at the adaxial (upper) side of the leaf tend to have characteristics associated with acclimation to high irradiance: a high Rubisco/chlorophyll and chl a/chl b ratio, high levels of xanthophyll-cycle carotenoids, and less stacking of the thylakoids (Fig. 13; Terashima & Hikosaka 1995). On the other hand, the spongy mesophyll cells at the abaxial (lower) side of the leaf have chloroplasts with a lower Rubisco/chlorophyll and chl a/chl b ratio, characteristic for acclimation to low irradiance. What are the consequences of such profiles within the leaf for the exact location of carbon fixation in the leaf? To address this question we first need to know the light profile within a leaf which can be measured with a fiberoptic microprobe that is moved through the leaf, taking light readings at different wavelengths (Vogelmann 1993). Chlorophyll is not homogeneously distributed in a cell; rather, it is concentrated in the chloroplasts that may have an heterogeneous distribution within and between cells. In addition, inside the leaf, absorption varies because of scattering at the air-liquid interfaces that modify pathlength (e.g., between palisade and spongy mesophyll) (Sect. 3.2.4). How can we obtain information on light absorption? After a period of incubation in the dark, chlorophyll fluorescence of a healthy leaf is proportional to the light absorbed by that leaf (Box 2A.4). Vogelmann & Evans (2002) illuminated leaves at the adaxial side and at the side of a transversal cut, and measured the distribution of fluorescence over the cut surface using imaging techniques. Fluorescence obtained with adaxial light represents light absorption, whereas lighting the cut surface represents chlorophyll concentration. In leaves of Spinacia oleracea (spinach), going from the upper leaf surface deeper into the leaf, the chlorophyll concentration increases to 50 mmol m—2over the first 250 mm in the palisade layer, remains similar deeper down in the palisade and spongy mesophyll, but then declines steeply toward the lower surface over the last 100 mm of

the spongy mesophyll layer (Fig. 1A). As expected from the absorption characteristics of chlorophyll (Fig. 2), green light is less strongly absorbed than blue and red, penetrates deeper into the leaf, and, consequently, shows there a higher absorption (Fig. 1A). The data on light absorption and chlorophyll concentration allow the calculation of an extinction coefficient, which varies surprisingly little across a leaf. Differences in scattering between the two mesophyll layers are apparently not very important as is also evident from measurements of infiltrated leaves (Fig. 11; Vogelmann & Evans 2002). What are the consequences of the profiles of absorption and chlorophyll concentration for the distribution of photosynthetic activity across a section of a leaf? The profile of photosynthetic capacity (Amax) can be measured following fixation of 14CO2 ensuring light saturation for all chloroplasts (Evans & Vogelmann 2003); alternatively, the profile of Rubisco concentration can be used (Nishio et al. 1993). Both techniques require making thin sections parallel to the leaf surface. Amaxpeaks where chlorophyll reaches its maximum in the palisade mesophyll, and declines to a lower value in the spongy mesophyll (Fig. 1A). Amax per chlorophyll decreases similarly from the palisade to the spongy mesophyll. We can use the profiles of Amax and absorbed irradiance to calculate photosynthetic activity (A) in each layer from the light-response curve, using virtually the same equation as introduced in Sect. 3.2.1 (the only difference being that Rday is left out): A¼

fI þ Amax  fðfI þ Amax Þ2  4fIAmax

0:5

g (1)

2

where f is the maximum quantum yield, I is the absorbed irradiance and  describes the curvature. The calculated light-response curves of the adaxial layers are like those of sun leaves, whereas those of the abaxial layers are like the ones of shade leaves. Photosynthetic activity peaks close to the adaxial surface in low light, but the maximum shifts to deeper layers at higher irradiances (Fig. 1B). Since green light

continued

32

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

Box 2A.3 Continued FIGURE 1. Profiles of chlorophyll and light absorption (A), and photosynthesis (B) in a leaf of Spinacia oleracea (spinach). The distribution of chlorophyll was derived from measurements of chlorophyll fluorescence, using a light source to illuminate the cut surface of a transversal section of the leaf. The absorption of green and blue light was also measured with chlorophyll fluorescence, but with light striking the upper leaf surface. The light-saturated photosynthetic electron transport rate (Amax) was derived from 14C-fixation profiles and photosynthetic activity at and irradiance of 500 and 50 mmol m–2 s–1 in green and blue light were calculated using Equation (1) (Vogelmann & Evans 2002; Evans & Vogelmann 2003).

has a lower absorptance, A in that spectral region is more homogeneously distributed across the leaf profile, whereas blue light causes a sharp

chloroplasts have a smaller volume of stroma, where the Calvin-cycle enzymes are located, but larger grana, which contain the major part of the chlorophyll. Such differences are found both between plants grown under different light conditions and between sun and shade leaves on a single plant, as well as when comparing chloroplasts from the upper and lower side of one, relatively thick, leaf of Schefflera arboricola (dwarf umbrella plant) (Fig. 12). The adaxial (upper) regions have a chloroplast ultrastructure like sun leaves, whereas

peak closer to the upper surface. Calculated profiles of A show a close match with the experimental data of the 14C-fixation profile.

shade acclimation is found in the abaxial (lower) regions of the leaf (Box 2A.3).

3.2.3 Biochemical Differences Between Shade and Sun Leaves Shade leaves minimize light limitation through increases in capacity for light capture and decreased carboxylation capacity and mesophyll conductance, but this does not invariably lead to higher chlorophyll concentrations per unit leaf area which

Response of Photosynthesis to Light determines their absorptance (Terashima et al. 2001, Warren et al. 2007). Some highly shade-adapted species [e.g., Hedera helix (ivy) in the juvenile stage], however, may have substantially higher chlorophyll levels per unit leaf area in shade. This might be due to the fact that their leaves do not get much thinner in the shade; however, there may also be some photodestruction of chlorophyll in high light in such species. In most species, however, higher levels of chlorophyll per unit fresh mass and per chloroplast in shade leaves are compensated for by the smaller number of chloroplasts and a lower fresh mass per area. This results in a rather constant chlorophyll level per unit area in sun- and shade leaves. The ratio between chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b (chl a/chl b) is lower in shade-acclimated leaves. These leaves have relatively more chlorophyll in the lightharvesting complexes, which contain large amounts of chl b (Lichtenthaler & Babani 2004). The decreased chl a/chl b ratio is therefore a reflection of the greater investment in LHCs (Evans 1988). The larger proportion of LHC is located in the larger grana of the shade-acclimated chloroplast (Fig. 12). Sun leaves also contain more xanthophyll carotenoids, relative to chlorophyll (Box 2A.3; Lichtenthaler 2007). Sun leaves have larger amounts of Calvin-cycle enzymes per unit leaf area as compared with shade leaves, due to more cell layers, a larger number of chloroplasts per cell, and a larger volume of stroma, where these enzymes are located, per chloroplast, compared with shade leaves. Sun leaves also have more stroma-exposed thylakoid membranes, which contain the b6f cytochromes and ATPase (Fig. 13). All these components enhance the photosynthetic capacity of sun leaves. Since the amount of chlorophyll per unit area is more or less equal among leaf types, sun leaves also have a higher photosynthetic capacity per unit chlorophyll. The biochemical gradients for Rubisco/chlorophyll across a leaf are similar to those observed within a canopy, with adaxial (upper) cells having more Rubisco, but less chlorophyll than abaxial (lower) cells (Terashima & Hikosaka 1995).

3.2.4 The Light-Response Curve of Sun and Shade Leaves Revisited Table 2 summarizes the differences in characteristics between shade-acclimated and sun-acclimated leaves (Walters 2005). The higher Amax of sun leaves as compared with shade leaves is associated with a greater amount of compounds that determine

33

FIGURE 13. Nitrogen partitioning among various components in shade- and sun-acclimated leaves. Most of the leaf’s N in herbaceous plants is associated with photosynthesis. Some of the fractions labeled Bios. (Biosynthesis) and Rem. (Remainder) are indirectly involved in synthesis and maintenance processes associated with the photosynthetic apparatus. LH ¼ light harvesting (LHC, PS I, PS II), ETþCF ¼ electron transport components and coupling factor (ATPase), CR ¼ enzymes associated with carbon reduction (Calvin cycle, mainly Rubisco), Bios ¼ biosynthesis (nucleic acids and ribosomes), Rem ¼ remainder, other proteins and N-containing compounds (e.g., mitochondrial enzymes, amino acids, cell wall proteins, alkaloids) (after Evans & Seemann 1989).

photosynthetic capacity which are located in the greater number of chloroplasts per area and in the larger stroma volume and the stroma-exposed thylakoids in chloroplasts. The increase of Amax with increasing amount of these compounds is almost linear (Evans & Seemann 1989). Hence, investment in compounds determining photosynthetic capacity is proportionally translated into photosynthetic rate at high irradiance levels. The higher rate of dark respiration in sun leaves is not only due to a greater demand for respiratory energy for the maintenance of the larger number of leaf cells and chloroplasts, because respiration rates drop rapidly upon shading, whereas Amax is still high (Pons & Pearcy 1994). Much of the demand for ATP is probably associated with the export of the products of photosynthesis from the leaf and other processes

34

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport TABLE 2. Overview of generalized differences in characteristics between shade- and sun-acclimated leaves. Sun

Shade

Structural Leaf dry mass per area Leaf thickness Palisade parenchyma thickness Spongy parenchyma thickness Stomatal density Chloroplast per area Thylakoids per stroma volume Thylakoids per granum

High Thick Thick Similar High Many Low Few

Low Thin Thin Similar Low Few High Many

Biochemical Chlorophyll per chloroplast Chlorophyll per area Chlorophyll per dry mass Chlorophyll a/b ratio Light-harvesting complex per area Electron transport components per area Coupling factor (ATPase) per area Rubisco per area Nitrogen per area Xanthophylls per area

low similar low high low high high high high high

high similar high low high low low low low low

Gas exchange Photosynthetic capacity per area Dark respiration per area Photosynthetic capacity per dry mass Dark respiration per dry mass Carboxylation capacity per area Electron transport capacity per area Quantum yield Curvature of light-response curve

high high similar similar high high similar gradual

low low similar similar low low similar acute

associated with a high photosynthetic activity (Sect. 4.4 in Chapter 2B on plant respiration). The preferential absorption of photons in the red and blue regions of the spectrum by a leaf is not a simple function of its irradiance and chlorophyll concentration. A relationship with a negative exponent would be expected, as described for monochromatic light and pigments in solution (Lambert-Beer’s law). The situation in a leaf is more complicated, however, because preferential absorption of red light by chlorophyll causes changes in the spectral distribution of light through the leaf. Moreover, the path length of light is complicated, due to reflection inside the leaf and to changes in the proportions of direct and diffuse light. Empirical equations, such as a hyperbole, can be used to describe light absorption by chlorophyll. For a healthy leaf, the quantum yield based on incident light is directly proportional to the amount of photons absorbed.

The cause of the decrease in convexity (Equation 7) of the light-response curve with increasing growth irradiance (Fig. 9) is probably partly associated with the level of light-acclimation of the chloroplast in the cross-section of a leaf in relation to the distribution of light within the leaf (Leverenz 1987). A high Amax per unit area and per unit chlorophyll (but not per unit biomass) of sun leaves is beneficial in high-light conditions, because the prevailing high irradiance can be efficiently exploited, and photon absorption per unit photosynthetic capacity is not limiting photosynthetic rates. Such a high Amax, however, would not be of much use in the shade, because the high irradiance required to utilize the capacity occurs only infrequently, and a high Amax is associated with high rates of respiration and a large investment of resources. On the other hand, a high chlorophyll concentration per unit photosynthetic capacity and per unit biomass in thin shade leaves maximizes the capture of limiting photons in

Response of Photosynthesis to Light

35

FIGURE 14. Light-saturated rate of CO2 assimilation (Amax) per unit chlorophyll in relation to growth irradiance for four different species. Plantago lanceolata (snake plantain) (Poot et al. 1996), Betula pendula ¨ (European white birch, Bp) (Oquist et al. 1982), Alocasia macrorrhiza (giant taro, Am) (Sims & Pearcy 1989), Hedera helix (ivy, Hh) (T.L. Pons, unpublished data).

low-light conditions which is advantageous at low irradiance. Apparently, there is a ‘‘tradeoff’’ between investment of resources in carbonassimilating capacity and in light harvesting as reflected in the ratio of photosynthetic capacity to chlorophyll concentration. This ratio represents light acclimation at the chloroplast level. Although Amaxper unit chlorophyll responds qualitatively similar to growth irradiance in all plants, there are differences among species (Fig. 14; Murchie & Horton 1997). Four functional groups can be discerned: 1. Shade-avoiding species, such as the pioneer tree Betula pendula (European white birch) have a high Amax/chlorophyll ratio. This ratio, however, does not change much with growth irradiance. 2. Fast-growing herbaceous species from habitats with a dense canopy and/or a variable light availability have high Amax/chlorophyll ratios, which decrease strongly with decreasing irradiance. Plantago lanceolata (snake plantain) and Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) (Bailey et al. 2001) are examples. 3. A plastic response is also found in shade-adapted plants such as herbaceous understory species [Alocasia macrorrhiza (giant taro)] that depend on gaps for reproduction, and forest trees that tolerate shade as seedlings. The Amax/chlorophyll ratio, however, is much lower over the entire range of irradiance levels. 4. A low Amax/chlorophyll ratio that changes little with growth irradiance is found in woody shadeadapted species, such as juvenile Hedera helix (ivy).

3.2.5 The Regulation of Acclimation As mentioned in previous sections, light acclimation consists of changes in leaf structure and chloroplast

number at the leaf level, and changes in the photosynthetic apparatus at the chloroplast level. Some aspects of leaf anatomy, including morphology of epidermal cells and the number of stomata, are controlled by systemic signals originating in mature leaves (Lake et al. 2001, Coupe et al. 2006). Chloroplast properties are mostly determined by the local light environment of the developing leaves (Yano & Terashima 2001). Studies of regulation at the chloroplast level have yielded significant insights. Each of the major components of the photosynthetic apparatus has part of their subunits encoded in the chloroplast and others in the nucleus. Acclimation of chloroplast composition thus likely entails coordinated changes in transcription of both genomes. The abundance of mRNAs coding for photosynthetic proteins, however, does not respond clearly during acclimation which suggests that posttranscriptional modifications play an important role (Walters 2005). Several perception mechanisms of the spectral and irradiance component of the light climate have been proposed. Mutants lacking cryptochrome and phytochrome photoreceptors (CRY1, CRY2, PHYA), or having defects in their signaling pathway, show changes in chloroplast composition and disturbance of normal acclimation (Smith et al. 1993, Walters et al. 1999). Hence, these photoreceptors are either actually involved in perception of the light environment with respect to photosynthetic acclimation, or their action is a prerequisite for normal development of the photosynthetic apparatus. There is also evidence for a role of signals from photosynthesis itself in the regulation of acclimation, either directly or indirectly. Several of these have been identified, such as the redox state of components of the photosynthetic membrane or in the stroma, the ATP/ADP ratio, reactive oxygen species,

36

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

and the concentration of carbohydrates, including glucose and trehalose-6-phosphate (Walters 2005), but a definitive answer about their precise role is still lacking. Systemic signals play a role in the effect of the light environment of mature leaves on the acclimation of young, growing leaves, irrespective of their own light environment (Yano & Terashima 2001).

3.3 Effects of Excess Irradiance All photons absorbed by the photosynthetic pigments result in excited chlorophyll, but at irradiance levels beyond the linear, light-limited region of the light-response curve of photosynthesis, not all excited chlorophyll can be used in photochemistry (Figs. 8, 15). The fraction of excitation energy that cannot be used increases with irradiance and under conditions that restrict the rate of electron transport and Calvin-cycle activity such as low temperature and desiccation. This is potentially harmful for plants, because the excess excitation may result in serious damage, if it is not dissipated. To avoid damage, plants have mechanisms to safely dispose of this excess excitation energy. When these mechanisms are at work, the quantum yield of photosynthesis is temporarily reduced (minutes), a normal phenomenon at high irradiance. The excess excitation energy, however, may also cause damage to the photosynthetic membranes if the dissipation mechanisms are inadequate. This is called

photoinhibition, which is due to an imbalance between the rate of photodamage to PS II and the rate of repair of damaged PS II. Photodamage is initiated by the direct effects of light on the O2-evolving complex and, thus, photodamage to PS II is unavoidable (Nishiyama et al. 2006). A reduction in quantum yield that is re-established within minutes to normal healthy values is referred to as dynamic photoinhibition (Osmond 1994); it is predominantly associated with changes in the xanthophyll cycle (Sect. 3.3.1). More serious damage that takes hours to revert to control conditions leads to chronic photoinhibition; it is mostly related to temporarily impaired D1 (Sect. 2.1.1; Long et al. 1994). Even longer-lasting photoinhibition (days) can be referred to as sustained photoinhibition (Sect. 7.2). A technique used for the quantification of photoinhibition is the measurement of quantum yield by means of chlorophyll fluorescence (Box 2A.4).

3.3.1 Photoinhibition—Protection by Carotenoids of the Xanthophyll Cycle Plants that are acclimated to high light dissipate excess energy through reactions mediated by a particular group of carotenoids (Fig. 16). This dissipation process is induced by accumulation of protons in the thylakoid lumen which is triggered by excess light. Acidification of the lumen induces an enzymatic conversion of the carotenoid violaxanthin into antheraxanthin and zeaxanthin (Gilmore 1997). The

FIGURE 15. Response of photosynthesis to light intensity. Photosynthesis increases hyperbolically with irradiance, but photon absorption, and thus the generation of excited chlorophylls, increases linearly. The difference (blue area) between the two processes increases with increasing irradiance and represents the excess excitation energy.

Response of Photosynthesis to Light

37

Box 2A.4 Chlorophyll Fluorescence When chlorophyllous tissue is irradiated with photosynthetically active radiation (400—700 nm) or wavelengths shorter than 400 nm, it emits radiation of longer wavelengths (approx. 680—760 nm). This fluorescence originates mainly from chlorophyll a associated with photosystem II (PS II). The measurement of the kinetics of chlorophyll fluorescence has been developed into a sensitive tool for probing state variables of the photosynthetic apparatus in vivo. In an ecophysiological context, this is a useful technique to quantify effects of stress on photosynthetic performance that is also applicable under field conditions. Photons absorbed by chlorophyll give rise to (1) an excited state of the pigment which is channelled to the reaction center and may give rise to photochemical charge separation. The quantum yield of this process is given by fP . Alternative routes for the excitation energy are (2) dissipation as heat (fD ) and (3) fluorescent emission (fF ). These three processes are competitive. This leads to the assumption that the sum of the quantum yields of the three processes is unity:

fP þ fD þ fF ¼ I

(1)

Since only the first two processes are subject to regulation, the magnitude of fluorescence depends on the added rates of photochemistry and heat dissipation. Measurement of fluorescence, therefore, provides a tool for quantification of these processes.

Basic Fluorescence Kinetics When a leaf is subjected to strong white light after incubation in darkness, a characteristic pattern of fluorescence follows, known as the ¨ Kautsky curve (Bolha`r-Nordenkampf & Ogren 1993, Schreiber et al. 1995). It rises immediately to a low value (F0), which is maintained only briefly in strong light, but can be monitored for a longer period in weak intermittent light (Fig. 1, left). This level of fluorescence (F0) is indicative of open reaction centers due to a fully oxidized state of the primary electron acceptor QA. In strong saturating irradiance, fluorescence

FIGURE 1. Fluorescence kinetics in darkincubated and illuminated leaves in response to a saturating pulse of white light. mod ¼ modulated measuring light on; sat ¼ saturating pulse on; act¼actinic light on for a prolonged period together with modulated measuring light; -act ¼ actinic light off. For explanation of fluorescence symbols see text (after Schreiber et al. 1995).

continued

38

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

Box 2A.4 Continued rises quickly to a maximum value (Fm) (Fig. 1, left) which indicates closure of all reaction centers as a result of fully reduced QA. When light is maintained, fluorescence decreases gradually (quenching) to a stable value as a result of induction of photosynthetic electron transport and dissipation processes. After a period of illumination at a subsaturating irradiance, fluorescence stabilizes at a value F, somewhat above F0 (Fig. 1, right). When a saturating pulse is given under these conditions, fluorescence does not rise to Fm, but 0 to a lower value called Fm . Although reaction centers are closed at saturating light, dissipation processes compete now with fluorescence which 0 causes the quenching of Fm to Fm . Since all reaction centers are closed during the saturating pulse, the photochemical quantum yield (fP ) is practically zero and, therefore, the quantum yields of dissipation at saturating light (fDm ) and fluorescence at saturating light (fFm ) are unity: fDm þ fFm ¼ 1

(2)

It is further assumed that there is no change in the relative quantum yields of dissipation and fluorescence during the saturating pulse: fDm fD ¼ fFm fF

(3)

Photochemical quantum yield (fP ) is also referred to as fII because it originates mainly from PSII. It can now be expressed in fluorescence parameters only, on the basis of Equations (1), (2), and (3). fII ¼

fFm  fF fFm

(4)

The fluorescence parameters F0 and Fm can be measured with time-resolving equipment, where the sample is irradiated in darkness with l5680 nm and fluorescence is detected as emitted radiation at l4680 nm. White light sources, however, typically also have radiation in the wavelength region of chlorophyll fluorescence. For measurements in any light condition, systems have been developed that use a weak modulated light source in conjunction with a

detector that monitors only the fluorescence emitted at the frequency and phase of the source. A strong white light source for generating saturating pulses ð45; 000 mol m2 s1 Þ and an actinic light source typically complete such systems. The modulated measuring light is sufficiently weak for measurement of F0. This is the method used in the example given in Fig. 1. The constancy of the measuring light means that any change in fluorescence signal is proportional to fF . This means that the maximum quantum yield (fIIm ) as measured in dark-incubated leaves is fm ¼ ðFm  F0 Þ=Fm ¼ Fv =Fm

(5)

where Fv is the variable fluorescence, the difference between maximal and minimal fluorescence. In illuminated samples the expression becomes f ¼ ðFm 0  FÞ=Fm 0 ¼ DF=Fm 0

(6)

where DF is the increase in fluorescence due to a saturating pulse superimposed on the actinic 0 has values equal to or lower irradiance. DF=Fm than Fv/Fm ; the difference increases with increasing irradiance. The partitioning of fluorescence quenching due to photochemical (qP) and nonphotochemical (qN) processes can be determined. These are defined as qP ¼ ðFm 0  FÞ=ðFm 0  F0 0 Þ ¼ DF=Fv 0

(7)

qN ¼ 1  ðFm 0  F0 0 Þ=ðFm  F0 Þ ¼ 1  Fv 0 =Fv (8) F0 may be quenched in light, and is then called 0 F0 (Fig. 1 right). The measurement of this parameter may be complicated, particularly under field conditions. We can also use another term for nonphotochemical quenching (NPQ) which does not require the determination of F00 : NPQ ¼ ðFm  Fm 0 Þ=Fm 0

(9)

The theoretical derivation of the fluorescence parameters as based on the assumptions described above is supported by substantial empirical evidence. The biophysical background of the processes, however, is not always fully understood.

continued

Response of Photosynthesis to Light

Box 2A.4 Continued

Relationships with Photosynthetic Performance Maximum quantum yield after dark incubation (Fv/Fm) is typically very stable at values around 0.8 in healthy leaves. Fv/Fm correlates well with the quantum yield of photosynthesis measured as O2 production or CO2 uptake at low irradiance (Fig. 2). In particular, the reduction of the quantum yield by photoinhibition can be evaluated with this fluorescence parameter. A decrease in Fv/Fm can be due to a decrease in Fm and/or an increase in F0. A fast- and a slow-relaxing component can be distinguished. The fast component is alleviated within a few hours of low light or darkness

FIGURE 2. The relationship between quantum yield, as determined from the rate of O2 evolution at different levels of low irradiance, and the maximum quantum yield of PS II determined with chlorophyll fluorescence (Fv/Fm, fIIm). Measurements were made on Glycine max (soybean) grown at high (open symbols) and low (filled symbols) N supply and exposed to high light for different periods prior to measurement (after Kao & Forseth 1992).

39 and is therefore only evident during daytime; it is supposed to be involved in protection of PS II against over-excitation. The slow-relaxing component remains several days and is considered as an indication of (longer-lasting) damage to PS II. Such damage can be the result of sudden exposure of shade leaves to full sun light, or a combination of high irradiance and extreme (high or low) temperature. The way plants cope with this combination of stress factors determines their performance in particular habitats where such conditions occur. 0 Quantum yield in light (DF/Fm ) can be used to derive the rate of electron transport (JF). JF ¼ I DF=Fm0 abs 0:5

(10)

where I is the irradiance and abs is the photon absorption by the leaf and 0.5 refers to the equal partitioning of photons between the two photosystems (Genty et al. 1989). For comparison of JF with photosynthetic gasexchange rates, the rate of the carboxylation (Vc) and oxygenation (Vo) reaction of Rubisco must be known. In C4 plants and in C3 plants at low O2 and/or high CO2, Vo is low and can be ignored. Hence, the rate of electron transport can also be derived from the rate of O2 production or CO2 uptake (Jc). For a comparison of JF with Jc in normal air in C3 plants, Vo must be estimated from the intercellular partial pressure of CO2 (Box 2A.1). Photosynthetic ratesgenerally show good correlations with JF (Fig. 3). JF may be somewhat higher than Jc (Fig. 3). This can be ascribed to electron flow associated with nonassimilatory processes, or with assimilatory processes that do not result in CO2 absorption, such as nitrate reduction. Alternatively, the chloroplast population monitored by fluorescence is not representative for the functioning of all chloroplasts across the whole leaf depth. The good correlation of gas exchange and fluorescence data in many cases indicates that JF is representative for the whole-leaf photosynthetic rate, at least in a relative sense. Hence, JF is also referred to as the relative rate of electron transport.

continued

40

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

Box 2A.4 Continued

FIGURE 3. Relationship of chlorophyll fluorescence parameters and rates of CO2 assimilation in the C3 plant Flaveria pringlei. A ¼ rate of CO2 assimilation; f II ¼ quantum yield of PS II in light (F/Fm0 ); JF ¼

dissipation process also requires a special photosystem II subunit S (PsbS) (Li et al. 2002). Mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana (thale cress) that are unable to convert violaxanthin to zeaxanthin in excessive light exhibit greatly reduced nonphotochemical quenching, and are more sensitive to photoinhibition than wild-type plants (Niyogi et al. 1998). Similarly, PsbS-deficient mutants have a reduced fitness at intermittent, moderate levels of excess light (Ku¨lheim et al. 2002). Zeaxanthin triggers a kind of ‘‘lightning rod’’ mechanism. It is involved in the induction of conformational changes in the light-harvesting antennae of PS II which facilitates the dissipation of excess excitations (Fig. 17; Pascal et al. 2005). This energy dissipation can be measured by chlorophyll fluorescence (Box 2A.4) and is termed

electron-transport rate calculated from f II and irradiance; Jc ¼ electron-transport rate calculated from gas-exchange parameters (after Krall & Edwards 1992). Copyright Physiologia Plantarum.

high-energy-dependent or pH-dependent fluorescence quenching. In the absence of a properly functioning xanthophyll cycle, excess energy could, among others, be passed on to O2. This leads to photooxidative damage when scavenging mechanisms cannot deal with the resulting reactive oxygen species (ROS). For example, herbicides that inhibit the synthesis of carotenoids cause the production of vast amounts of ROS that cause chlorophyll to bleach and thus kill the plant (Wakabayashi & Boger 2002). In the ¨ absence of any inhibitors, ROS inhibit the repair of PS II, in particular the synthesis of the D1 protein of PS II, by their effect on mRNA translation. It is a normal phenomenon when plants are exposed to full sunlight even in the absence of other stress factors (Nishiyama et al. 2006).

Response of Photosynthesis to Light

41

FIGURE 16. Scheme of the xanthophyll cycle and its regulation by excess or limiting light. Upon exposure to excess light, a rapid stepwise removal (de-epoxidation) of two oxygen functions (the epoxy groups) in violaxanthin takes place; the pH optimum of this reaction, which is catalyzed a de-epoxidase, is acidic. This deepoxidation results in a lengthening of the conjugated

system of double bonds from 9 in violaxanthin 10 and 11 in antheraxanthin and zeaxanthin, respectively. The deepoxidation step occurs in minutes. Under low-light conditions, the opposite process, epoxidation, takes place. It may take minutes, hours, or days, depending on environmental conditions (Demmig-Adams & Adams 1996, 2006).

However, when shade plants are exposed to full sunlight, or when other stresses combine with high irradiance (e.g., desiccation, high or low temperature) then more excessive damage can occur, involving destruction of membranes and oxidation of chlorophyll (bleaching), causing a longerlasting reduction in photosynthesis. In sun-exposed sites, diurnal changes in irradiance are closely tracked by the level of antheraxanthin and zeaxanthin. In shade conditions, sunflecks lead to the rapid appearance of antheraxanthin and zeaxanthin and reappearance of violaxanthin between subsequent sunflecks. This regulation mechanism ensures that no competing dissipation of energy occurs when light is limiting for photosynthesis, whereas damage is prevented when light is absorbed in excess. Typically, sungrown plants not only contain a larger fraction of the carotenoids as zeaxanthin in high light, but their total pool of carotenoids is larger also (Fig. 18; Adams et al. 1999). The pool of reduced ascorbate, which plays a role in the xanthophyll cycle (Fig. 17), is also several-fold greater in plants acclimated to high light (Logan et al. 1996).

3.3.2 Chloroplast Movement in Response to Changes in Irradiance The leaf’s absorptance is affected by the concentration of chlorophyll in the leaf and the path length of light in the leaf, as well as by the location of the chloroplasts. Light-induced movements of chloroplasts are affected only by wavelengths below 500 nm. High intensities in this wavelength region cause the chloroplasts to line up along the vertical walls, parallel to the light direction, rather than along the lower cell walls, perpendicular to the direction of the radiation, as in control leaves. Chloroplasts are anchored with actin networks and their final positioning relies on connections to actin (Staiger et al. 1997). Chloroplast movements are pronounced in aquatic plants, such as Vallisneria gigantea (giant vallis) and shade-tolerant understory species, such as Oxalis oregana (redwood sorrel) where they may decrease the leaf’s absorptance by as much as 20%, thereby increasing both transmittance and reflectance. Other species [e.g., the shadeavoiding Helianthus annuus (sunflower)] show no blue light-induced chloroplast movement or change

42

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 17. Top: Depiction of the conditions where (A) all or (B) only part of the sunlight absorbed by chlorophyll within a leaf is used for photosynthesis. Safe dissipation of excess energy requires the presence of zeaxanthin as well as a low pH in the photosynthetic membranes. The same energized form of chlorophyll is used either for photosynthesis or loses its energy as heat. Bottom: Depiction of the regulation of the biochemistry of the xanthophyll cycle as well as the induction of xanthophyll-cycle-dependent energy dissipation by pH. De-epoxidation to antheraxanthin (A) and

zeaxanthin (Z) from violaxanthin (V), catalyzed by a de-epoxidase with an acidic pH optimum, takes place at a low pH in the lumen of the thylakoid as well in the presence of reduced ascorbate. Protonation of a residue of a photosystem II subunit S (PsbS) is essential for the functioning of the cycle. In addition, a low pH of certain domains within the membrane, together with the presence of zeaxanthin or antheraxanthin, is required to induce the actual energy dissipation. This dissipation takes place within the light-collecting antenna complex of PS II (modified after Demmig-Adams & Adams 1996).

in absorptance. Chloroplast movements in shade plants exposed to high light avoid photoinhibition (Brugnoli & Bjorkman 1992). ¨

however, are typically not constant, irradiance being the most rapidly varying environmental factor. Since photosynthesis primarily depends on irradiance, the dynamic response to variation in irradiance deserves particular attention. The irradiance level above a leaf canopy changes with time of day and with cloud cover, often by more than an order of magnitude within seconds. In a leaf canopy, irradiance, particularly direct radiation, changes even more. In a forest, direct sunlight may penetrate through holes in

3.4 Responses to Variable Irradiance So far we have discussed mostly steady-state responses to light, meaning that a particular environmental condition is maintained until a constant response is achieved. Conditions in the real world,

Response of Photosynthesis to Light

FIGURE 18. Differences in zeaxanthin (Z), violaxanthin (V) and antheraxanthin (A) contents of leaves upon acclimation to the light level [Vinca minor (periwinkle)], season [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir)] and N supply [Spinacia oleracea (spinach)]. The total areas reflect the concentration of the three carotenoids relative to that of chlorophyll (after Demmig-Adams & Adams 1996).

the overlying leaf canopy, casting sunflecks on the forest floor. These move with wind action and position of the sun, thus exposing both leaves in the canopy and shade plants in the understory to short periods of bright light. Sunflecks typically account for 40—60% of total irradiance in understory canopies of dense tropical and temperate forests and are quite variable in duration and intensity (Chazdon & Pearcy 1991).

3.4.1 Photosynthetic Induction When a leaf that has been in darkness or low light for hours is transferred to a saturating level of

43 irradiance, the photosynthetic rate increases only gradually over a period of up to one hour to a new steady-state rate (Fig. 19), with stomatal conductance increasing more or less in parallel. We cannot conclude, however, that limitation of photosynthesis during induction is invariably due to stomatal opening (Allen & Pearcy 2000). If stomatal conductance limited photosynthesis, the intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) should drop immediately upon transfer to high irradiance, but, in fact, there is a more gradual decline over the first minutes, and then a slow increase until full induction (Fig. 19). Stomatal patchiness might play a role (Sect. 5.1), but there are also additional limitations at the chloroplast level. The demand for CO2 increases faster than the supply in the first minutes as evident from the initial decline in Ci. Its subsequent rise indicates that the supply increases faster than the demand, as shown in Fig. 20, where Anis plotted as a function of Ci during photosynthetic induction. During the first one or two minutes there is a fast increase in demand for CO2 (fast induction component) which is due to fast light induction of some Calvin-cycle enzymes and build-up of metabolite pools (Sassenrath-Cole et al. 1994). The slower phase of increase in demand until approximately 10 minutes is dominated by the light-activation of Rubisco. After that, Ci increases and An increases along the An—Ci curve, indicating that a decrease in stomatal limitation dominates further rise in photosynthetic rate (Fig. 20). Loss of photosynthetic induction occurs in low light, but at a lower rate than induction in high light, particularly in forest understory species. Hence, in a sequence of sunflecks, photosynthetic induction increases from one sunfleck to the next, until a high induction state is reached, when sunflecks can be used efficiently (Fig. 19).

3.4.2 Light Activation of Rubisco Rubisco, as well as other enzymes of the Calvin cycle, are activated by light, before they have a high catalytic activity (Fig. 21; Portis 2003). The increase in Rubisco activity, due to its activation by light, closely matches the increased photosynthetic rate at a high irradiance apart from possible stomatal limitations. Two mechanisms are involved in the activation of Rubisco. Firstly, CO2 binds covalently to a lysine residue at the enzyme’s active site (carbamylation), followed by binding of Mg2+ and RuBP. In this activated state, Rubisco is able to catalyze the reaction with CO2 or O2. Rubisco is deactivated when (1) RuBP binds to a decarbamylated

44

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 19. Photosynthetic induction in Toona australis, which is an understory species from the tropical rainforest in Australia. (Left panels) Time course of the rate of CO2 assimilation (An) (top), stomatal conductance (gs) (middle), and the intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) (bottom) of plants that were first exposed to a low

irradiance level and then transferred to high saturating irradiance. (Right panels) Leaves are exposed to five ‘‘sunflecks’’, indicated by arrows, with a low background level of irradiance in between (Chazdon & Pearcy 1986).

Rubisco, (2) 2-carboxy-D-arabinitol 1-phosphate (CA1P), an analogue of the extremely short-lived intermediate of the RuBP carboxylation reaction,

binds to the carbamylated Rubisco, and (3) a product produced by the catalytic ‘‘misfire’’ of Rubisco (‘‘misprotonation’’), xylulose-1,5-bisphosphate (Salvucci & Crafts-Brandner 2004a), binds to a carbamylated Rubisco. Secondly, Rubisco activase plays a role in catalyzing the dissociation of inhibitors from the active site of Rubisco; its activity increases with increasing rate of electron transport (Fig. 21). The activity of Rubisco activase is regulated by ADP/ ATP and redox changes mediated by thioredoxin in some species. Light activation of Rubisco, a natural process that occurs at the beginning of the light period in all plants, is an important aspect of the regulation (fine-tuning) of photosynthesis. In the absence of such light activation, the three phases of the Calvin cycle (carboxylation, reduction, and regeneration of RuBP) may compete for substrates, leading to oscillation of the rate of CO2 fixation upon the beginning of the light period. It may also protect active sites of Rubisco during inactivity in darkness (Portis 2003), but the regulation mechanism occurs at the expense of low rates of CO2 assimilation during periods of low induction.

FIGURE 20. Photosynthetic response of Alocasia macrorrhiza (giant taro) to intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) during the induction phase after a transition from an irradiance level of 10 to 500 mmol m–2 s–1 (light saturation). The solid line represents the An–Ci relationship of a fully induced leaf calculated as Rubisco-limited rates. Numbers indicate minutes after transition (after Kirschbaum & Pearcy 1988).

Response of Photosynthesis to Light

45

FIGURE 21. (A) Light activation of Rubisco and two other Calvin cycle enzymes, Ribulose-5-phosphate kinase and fructose-bisphosphatase (Salvucci 1989). Copyright Physiologia Plantarum. (B) Time course of Rubisco

activation level during sequential light open symbols) and dark (filled symbols) periods (after Portis et al. 1986). Copyright American Society of Plant Biologists.

3.4.3 Post-illumination CO2 Assimilation and Sunfleck-Utilization Efficiency

minutes (Fig. 25). At low induction states, sunfleck-utilization efficiency decreases below what would be expected from steady-state rates (Fig. 23). Forest understory plants tend to utilize sunflecks more efficiently than plants from short vegetation, particularly flecks of a few seconds to a few minutes. Accumulation of larger Calvin-cycle metabolite pools and longer maintenance of photosynthetic induction are possible reasons. Efficient utilization of sunflecks is crucial for understory plants, since most radiation comes in the form of relatively long-lasting sunflecks, and half the plant’s assimilation may depend on these short periods of high irradiance.

The rate of O2 evolution, the product of the first step of electron transport, stops immediately after a sunfleck, whereas CO2 assimilation continues for a brief period thereafter. This is called post-illumination CO2 fixation (Fig. 22). CO2 assimilation in the Calvin cycle requires both NADPH and ATP, which are generated during the light reactions. Particularly in short sunflecks, this post-illumination CO2 fixation is important relative to photosynthesis during the sunfleck, thus increasing total CO2 assimilation due to the sunfleck above what would be expected from steady-state measurements (Fig. 23). CO2 assimilation due to a sunfleck also depends on induction state. Leaves become increasingly induced with longer sunflecks of up to a few

FIGURE 22. CO2 uptake and O2 release in response to a ‘‘sunfleck’’. Arrows indicate the beginning and end of the ‘‘sunfleck’’ (Pearcy 1990). With kind permission from the Annual Review of Plant Physiology Plant Molecular Biology, Vol. 41, copyright 1990, by Annual Reviews Inc.

3.4.4 Metabolite Pools in Sun and Shade Leaves As explained in Sect. 2.1.3, the photophosphorylation of ADP depends on the proton gradient across

46

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport the thylakoid membrane. This gradient is still present immediately following a sunfleck, and ATP can therefore still be generated for a brief period. The formation of NADPH, however, directly depends on the flux of electrons from water, via the photosystems and the photosynthetic electron-transport chain, and therefore comes to an immediate halt after the sunfleck. Moreover, the concentration of NADPH in the cell is too low to sustain Calvincycle activity. Storage of the reducing equivalents takes place in triose-phosphates (Table 3), which are intermediates of the Calvin cycle. To allow the storage of reducing power in intermediates of the Calvin cycle, the phosphorylating step leading to the substrate for the reduction reaction must proceed. This can be realized by regulating the activity of two enzymes of the Calvin cycle which both utilize ATP: phosphoglycerate kinase and ribulose-phosphate kinase (Fig. 4). When competing for ATP in vitro, the second kinase tends to dominate, leaving little ATP for phosphoglycerate kinase. If this were to happen in vivo as well, no storage of reducing equivalents in triose-phosphate would be possible, and CO2 assimilation would not continue beyond the sunfleck. The concentration of triose-phosphate at the end of a

FIGURE 23. Efficiency of ‘‘sunfleck’’ utilization as dependent on duration of the ‘‘sunfleck’’ and induction state in two species. Alocasia macrorrhiza (giant taro, an understory species) measured at high (closed symbols) and low induction state (open symbols). Induction state of Glycine max (soybean, a sun species) is approximately 50% of maximum. Efficiencies are calculated as total CO2 assimilation due to the sunfleck relative to that calculated from the steady-state rates at the high irradiance (sunfleck) and the low (background) irradiance (Pearcy 1988, Pons & Pearcy 1992).

TABLE 3. The potential contribution of triose-phosphates and ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate to the post-illumination CO2 assimilation of Alocasia macrorrhiza (giant taro) and Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean), grown either in full sun or in the shade. * Alocasia macrorrhiza Shade RuBP (mmol m–2) Triose phosphates (mmol m–2) Total potential CO2 fixation (mmol m–2) Potential efficiency (%) Triose-P/RuBP Post-illumination ATP required (mmol g–1 Chl)

Sun

Phaseolus vulgaris Shade

Sun

2.0

14.5

2.9

5.3

16.3

18.0

19.8

10.5

12

25

15

12

190

204

154

120

4.9 13

0.7 22

4.1 63

1.2 29

Source: Sharkey et al. (1986a). * The values for the intermediates give the difference in their pool size at the end of the lightfleck and 1 min later. The total potential CO2 assimilation is RuP2 þ 3/5 triose-P pool size. The potential efficiency was calculated on the assumption that the rate of photosynthesis during the 5 s lightfleck was equal to the steady-state value measured after 20 minute in high light.

Partitioning of the Products of Photosynthesis and Regulation by ‘‘Feedback’’ sunfleck is relatively greater in shade leaves than in sun leaves, whereas the opposite is found for ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate (Table 3). This indicates that the activity of the steps in the Calvin cycle leading to ribulose-phosphate is suppressed. Thus competition for ATP between the kinase is prevented, and the reducing power from NADPH can be transferred to 1,3-bisphosphoglycerate, leading to the formation of triose-phosphate. Storage of reducing power occurs in species that are adapted to shade, e.g., Alocasia macrorrhiza (giant taro), as well as in leaves acclimated to shade, e.g., shade leaves of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris).

3.4.5 Net Effect of Sunflecks on Carbon Gain and Growth Although most understory plants can maintain a positive carbon balance with diffuse light in the absence of sunflecks, daily carbon assimilation and growth rate in moist forests correlates closely with irradiance received in sunflecks (Fig. 24). Moreover, sunflecks account for an increasing proportion of total carbon gain (9—46%) as their size and frequency increase. In dry forests, where understory plants experience both light and water limitation, sunflecks may reduce daily carbon gain on cloud-free days (Allen & Pearcy 2000). Thus, the net impact of

FIGURE 24. (A) Total carbon gain of Adenocaulon bicolor as a function of daily photon flux contributed by sunflecks in the understorey of a temperate redwood forest. (B) Relative growth rate of Euphorbia forbesii (filled circles) and Claoxylon sandwicense (open circles) as a function of average duration of potential sunflecks (estimated from hemispherical photographs) in the understorey of a tropical forest (after Chazdon & Pearcy 1991).

47

sunflecks on carbon gain depends on both cumulative irradiance and other potentially limiting factors.

4. Partitioning of the Products of Photosynthesis and Regulation by ‘‘Feedback’’ 4.1 Partitioning Within the Cell Most of the products of photosynthesis are exported out of the chloroplast to the cytosol as triose-phosphate in exchange for Pi. Triose-phosphate is the substrate for the synthesis of sucrose in the cytosol (Fig. 25) and for the formation of cellular components in the source leaf. Sucrose is largely exported to other parts (sinks) of the plant, via the phloem. Partitioning of the products of the Calvin cycle within the cell is controlled by the concentration of Pi in the cytosol. If this concentration is high, rapid exchange for triose-phosphate allows export of most of the products of the Calvin cycle. If the concentration of Pi drops, the exchange rate will decline, and the concentration of triose-phosphate in the chloroplast increases. Inside the chloroplasts, the triosephosphates are used for the synthesis of starch, releasing Pi within the chloroplast. So, the partitioning of the products of photosynthesis between export to the cytosol and storage compounds in the chloroplasts is largely determined by the availability of Pi in the cytosol. This regulation can be demonstrated by experiments using leaf discs in which the concentration of cytosolic Pi is manipulated (Table 4). In intact plants the rate of photosynthesis may also be reduced when the plant’s demand for carbohydrate (reduced sink strength) is decreased, for example by the removal of part of the fruits or ‘‘girdling’’ of the petiole (Table 4). [Girdling involves damaging the phloem tissue of the stem, either by a temperature treatment or mechanically, leaving the xylem intact.] Restricting the export of assimilates by reduced sink capacity or more directly by blocking the phloem sequesters the cytosolic Pi in phosphorylated sugars, leading to feedback inhibition of photosynthesis. When the level of Pi in the cytosol is increased, by floating the leaf discs on a phosphate buffer, the rate of photosynthesis may also drop [e.g., in Cucumis sativus (cucumber) Table 4], but there is no accumulation of starch. This is likely due to the very rapid export of triose-phosphate from the chloroplasts, in exchange for Pi, depleting the Calvin cycle of intermediates.

48

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport FIGURE 25. The formation of triosephosphate in the Calvin cycle. Triose-P is exported to the cytosol, in exchange for inorganic phosphate (Pi), or used as a substrate for the synthesis of starch in the chloroplast.

4.2 Short-Term Regulation of Photosynthetic Rate by Feedback Under conditions of ‘‘feedback inhibition’’ (Sect. 4.1), phosphorylated intermediates of the pathway leading to sucrose accumulate, inexorably decreasing the cytosolic Pi concentration. In the absence of sufficient Pi in the chloroplast, the formation of ATP is reduced and the activity of the Calvin cycle declines. That is, less intermediates are available and less

RuBP is regenerated, so that the carboxylating activity of Rubisco and hence the rate of photosynthesis drops. How important is feedback inhibition in plants whose sink has not been manipulated? To answer this question, we can determine the O2 sensitivity of photosynthesis. Normally, the rate of net CO2 assimilation increases when the O2 concentration is lowered from a normal 21% to 1 or 2%, due to the suppression of the oxygenation reaction. When the

Partitioning of the Products of Photosynthesis and Regulation by ‘‘Feedback’’

49

TABLE 4. Rates of CO2 assimilation (mmol m–2s–1) and the accumulation of 14C in soluble sugars (‘‘ethanolsoluble’’) and starch (‘‘HClO4-soluble’’) (14C as % of total 14C recovered) in leaf discs of Gossypium hirsutum (cotton) and Cucumis sativus (cucumber) floating on a Tris-maleate buffer, a phosphate buffer, or a mannose solution.* Control

Girdled

CO2 Fixation

EthanolSoluble

HClO4Soluble

CO2 Fixation

EthanolSoluble

HClO4 Soluble

18 18 12

83 87 54

17 13 46

12 10 10

76 83 76

24 17 24

13 9 9

76 82 55

24 18 45

6 5 4

40 76 40

60 24 60

Cotton Tris-maleate Phosphate Mannose Cucumber Tris-maleate Phosphate Mannose

Source: Plaut et al. (1987). * Leaves were taken from control plants (‘‘control’’) or from plants whose petioles had been treated in such a way as to restrict phloem transport (‘‘girdled’’). The concentration of cytosolic Pi can be decreased by incubating leaf discs in a solution containing mannose. Mannose is readily taken up and enzymatically converted into mannose phosphate, thus sequestering some of the Pi originally present in the cytosol. Under these conditions starch accumulates in the chloroplasts. At extremely low cytosolic Pi concentrations, the rate of photosynthesis is also reduced. When leaf discs are taken from plants with reduced sink capacity, the addition of mannose has very little effect, because the cytosolic Pi concentration is already low before mannose addition.

activity of Rubisco is restricted by the regeneration of RuBP, lowering the O2 concentration enhances the net rate of CO2 assimilation to a lesser extent. Feedback inhibition is found at a high irradiance and also at a low temperature, which restricts phloem loading. Under these conditions the capacity to assimilate CO2 exceeds the capacity to export and further metabolize the products of photosynthesis. Consequently, phosphorylated intermediates of the pathway from triose-phosphate to sucrose accumulate which sequesters phosphate. As a result, Pi starts to limit photosynthesis, and the rate of photosynthesis declines as soon as the capacity to channel triosephosphate to starch is saturated. Figure 26, showing the response of the net rate of CO2 assimilation to N2 þ CO2 at four levels of irradiance and a leaf temperature of 158C, illustrates this point. The assessment of feedback inhibition of photosynthesis using the O2 sensitivity of this process is complicated by the fact that the relative activities of the carboxylating and oxygenating reactions of Rubisco also depend on temperature (Sect. 7.1). To resolve this problem, a mathematical model of photosynthesis has been used (Box 2A.1). This model incorporates biochemical information on the photosynthetic reactions and simulates the effect of

FIGURE 26. The response of the CO2 assimilation rate to a change in O2 concentration at four levels of irradiance. The broken lines give the steady-state rate of CO2 assimilation. The gas phase changes from air to N2 þ CO2 at the time indicated by the arrows. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere surrounding the leaf is maintained at 550 mmol mol–1 and the leaf temperature at 15oC. At a relatively low irradiance (340 mmol m–2 s–1) the rate of CO2 assimilation is rapidly enhanced when the O2 concentration is decreased, whereas at high irradiance (880 mmol m–2 s–1), CO2 assimilation first decreases and is only marginally enhanced after several minutes, indicative of feedback inhibition (after Sharkey et al. 1986b). Copyright American Society of Plant Biologists.

50

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 27. The effect of temperature on the net rate of CO2 assimilation at 18% (v/v; filled symbols) and 3% (v/v; open symbols) O2 (top), and the O2 sensitivity of

photosynthesis (bottom) for a number of species. All plants were grown outdoors (after Sage & Sharkey 1987). Copyright American Society of Plant Biologists.

Responses to Availability of Water lowering the O2 concentration at a range of temperatures. Comparison of the observed effect of the decrease in O2 concentration (Fig. 27, lower middle and right panels) with the experimental observations (Fig. 27, lower left panel), allows conclusions on the extent of feedback inhibition in plants under normal conditions. The lower right panels show distinct feedback inhibition for Solanum lycopersicum (tomato) and Populus fremontii (Fremont cottonwood) at low temperatures, and less feedback inhibition for Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean), Capsicum annuum (pepper), Scrophularia desertorum (figwort), and Cardaria draba (hoary cress). Comparison of the modeled results in the lower left panel with the experimental results in the other lower panels in Fig. 27 shows that photosynthesis of plants growing under natural conditions can be restricted by feedback, especially at relatively low temperatures. Feedback inhibition is predominantly associated with species accumulating starch in their chloroplasts, rather than sucrose and hexoses in the cytosol and vacuoles. Since genetically transformed plants of the same species, lacking the ability to store starch, behave like the starch-accumulating wild type, the reason for this difference remains obscure (Goldschmidt & Huber 1992). Perhaps it reflects the mode of phloem loading (i.e., either symplastic or apoplastic; Chapter 2C on long-distance transport).

4.3 Sugar-Induced Repression of Genes Encoding Calvin-Cycle Enzymes The feedback mechanism outlined in Sect. 4.2 operates in the short term, adjusting the activity of the existing photosynthetic apparatus to the capacity of export and sink activity, but mechanisms at the level of gene transcription play a more important role in the long term. They modify photosynthetic capacity and can override regulation by light, tissue type, and developmental stage (Smeekens & Rook 1998). Leaves of Triticum aestivum (wheat) fed with 1% glucose have a lower photosynthetic capacity as well as lower levels of mRNA coding for several Calvin-cycle enzymes, including the small subunit of Rubisco (Jones et al. 1996). Regulation of photosynthetic gene expression by carbohydrates plays an important role in the control of the activity of the ‘‘source’’ (leaves) by the demand in the ‘‘sink’’ (e.g., fruits) (Paul & Foyer 2001). Sensing of carbohydrate levels is mediated by a specific hexokinase, which is an enzyme that phosphorylates hexose while hydrolyzing ATP (Smeekens 2000). This regulation at the level of gene transcription plays a role in the

51 acclimation of the photosynthetic apparatus to elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO2 (Sect. 12), and, more generally in adjusting photosynthetic capacity to environmental and developmental needs.

4.4 Ecological Impacts Mediated by Source-Sink Interactions Many ecological processes affect photosynthesis through their impact on plant demand for carbohydrate (Sect. 4.2). In general, processes that increase carbohydrate demand increase the rate of photosynthesis, whereas factors that reduce demand reduce photosynthesis. Although defoliation generally reduces carbon assimilation by the defoliated plant by reducing the biomass of photosynthetic tissue, it may cause a compensatory increase in photosynthetic rate of remaining leaves through several mechanisms. The increased sink demand for carbohydrate generally leads to an increase in Amax in the remaining leaves. Defoliation also reduces environmental constraints on photosynthesis by increasing light penetration through the canopy, and by increasing the biomass of roots available to support each remaining leaf. The resulting increases in light and water availability may enhance photosynthesis under shaded and dry conditions, respectively. Growth at elevated atmospheric [CO2] may lead to a down-regulation of photosynthesis, involving sensing of the leaves’ carbohydrate status (Sect. 12.1), and other ecological factors discussed here probably act on photosynthesis in a similar manner. Box 2A.5 provides a brief overview of gasexchange equipment, especially portable equipment that can be used in the field for ecological surveys.

5. Responses to Availability of Water The inevitable loss of water, when the stomata are open to allow photosynthesis, may lead to a decrease in leaf relative water content (RWC), if the water supply from roots does not match the loss from leaves. The decline in RWC may directly or indirectly affect photosynthesis. In this section we describe effects of the water supply on photosynthesis, and discuss genetic adaptation and phenotypic acclimation to water shortage.

52

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

Box 2A.5 The Measurement of Gas Exchange The uptake and release of CO2 in photosynthesis and respiration and the release of H2O during transpiration of plants or leaves is measured using gas-exchange systems. Several types exist (e.g., Field et al. 1989, Long & Ha¨llgren 1993). Here we briefly address the operation of socalled open systems and potential complications with their use, with particular attention to the now commonly used portable systems that are commercially available. The essence of a gas-exchange system is a transparent chamber that encloses the photosynthetically active tissue. Air enters the chamber at a specified flow rate (fm) measured and controlled by a flow-controller. The leaf changes the concentrations of CO2 and H2O inside the chamber. The magnitude of the difference in CO2 and H2O concentration between the air entering the chamber (Ce and We) and at the outlet (Co and Wo) depends on its gas-exchange activity. The net photosynthetic rate (An) is then calculated following Von Caemmerer & Farquhar (1981). An ¼ fm =La fCe  Co ð1  We Þ=ð1  Wo Þg (1) An is expressed per unit leaf area (La), but another basis, e.g., dry mass can also be used. The last part of the equation refers to the correction for the volume increase and, consequently, concentration decrease caused by the simultaneously occurring transpiration (E). E can be calculated similarly by substituting We and Wo for Ce and Co. When leaf temperature is also measured, stomatal conductance (gs) can be calculated using E and assuming a saturated vapor pressure in the intercellular spaces of the leaf. From gs and An, intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) can be calculated. The principle is explained in Sect. 2.2.2, but corrections are necessary (Von Caemmerer & Farquhar 1981). The calculations assume homogeneity of parameter values across the measured area. A powerful analysis of photosynthetic performance can be made when these four gas-exchange parameters are available, as explained in the text. A further development is the combination of gas-exchange with the measurement of chlorophyll

fluorescence (Box 2A.4) that gives a measure of electron-transport rate allowing estimates of the CO2 concentration in the chloroplast (Cc), conductance for CO2 transport in the mesophyll (gm), photorespiration, and engagement of alternative electron sinks (Long & Bernacchi 2003). A typical leaf chamber contains a fan that homogenizes the air which makes Co and Wo representative of the air around the leaf (Ca and Wa, respectively). The fan further increases the boundary layer conductance (Chapter 4A), which allows a better control of leaf temperature and reduces possible errors associated with the estimation of gs. It further contains a sensor for leaf and/or air temperature and a light sensor is attached. Most of the recent models of portable systems are also equipped with temperature control. Concentrations of CO2 and H2O at the inlet and outlet of the leaf chamber are measured with an infra-red gas analyzer (IRGA). The concentration of CO2 and H2O can be manipulated in the more advanced models that are also equipped with a light source. The systems are completed with computerized control, data-acquisition and data-processing. This versatile equipment can be used to measure photosynthetic performance in ambient conditions and for measuring the response of gas-exchange activity to environmental factors such as humidity, CO2, temperature and light. The ease of gas-exchange measurement brings the danger of less critical use. Some sources of error and guidelines for their avoidance are given by Long & Bernacchi (2003); here, the most important problems are addressed. Modern systems have small chambers that clamp with gaskets on a leaf, thus limiting the measurement to a part of the leaf. This has the advantage that also small leaves can easily be measured and that the condition of homogeneity mentioned above is more easily met. However, the use of a small area has its draw-backs. In these chambers, a significant part of the leaf is covered by the gasket. The leaf area under the gasket continues to respire, and part of the CO2 produced diffuses to the leaf chamber where it

continued

Responses to Availability of Water

Box 2A.5 Continued results in overestimation of respiration rates (Pons & Welschen 2002). In homobaric leaves, air can escape through the intercellular spaces depending on the overpressure in the chamber which complicates matters further (Jahnke & Pieruschka 2006). CO2 and H2O can also diffuse through the gasket, and more likely along the interface between gasket and leaf. This is particularly important when concentrations inside and outside the chamber are different, such as when measuring a CO2 response and at high humidity in a dry environment (Flexas et al. 2007b, Rodeghiero et al. 2007). Large errors can be caused by these imperfections, particularly when using small chambers at low gas-exchange rates. Suggestions are given in the above-mentioned publications for minimizing and

5.1 Regulation of Stomatal Opening Stomatal opening tends to be regulated such that photosynthesis is approximately co-limited by CO2 diffusion through stomata and light-driven electron transport. This is seen in Fig. 6 as the intersection between the line describing the leaf’s conductance for CO2 transport (supply function) and the A-Cc curve (demand function). A higher conductance and higher Cc would only marginally increase CO2 assimilation, but would significantly increase transpiration, since transpiration increases linearly with gs, as a result of the constant difference in water vapor concentration between the leaf and the air (wi-wa) (Sect. 2.2.2, Fig. 28; Sect. 5.4.3 of Chapter 3 on plant water relations). At lower conductance, water loss declines again linearly with gs; however, Cc also declines, because the demand for CO2 remains the same, and the difference with Ca increases. This increased CO2 concentration gradient across the stomata counteracts the decrease in gs. Hence, photosynthesis declines less than does transpiration with decreasing Ccand Ci. The result is an increasing water-use efficiency (WUE) (carbon gain per water lost) with decreasing gs. Less of the total photosynthetic capacity is used at a low Ccand Ci, however, leading to a reduced photosynthetic Nuse efficiency (PNUE) (carbon gain per unit leaf N; Sect. 6.1).

53 correcting these errors, but that is not always straightforward and sometimes not possible. When measuring gas-exchange rates under ambient conditions in the field, glasshouse, or growth chamber, ambient light is attenuated, particularly around the edges. Ambient air is often used for such measurements. The uptake of CO2 results in a decreased CO2 concentration in the chamber, causing a further underestimation of An compared with in situ rates. The reading for E deviates also from in situ rates due to a chamber climate in terms of humidity, temperature, and turbulence that differs from outside. When using short periods of enclosure, gs is probably not affected by the chamber climate. Corrections of An and E can be made from assumed or separately measured short-term humidity, temperature, light, and CO2 effects, using measurements of environmental parameters in undisturbed conditions.

Plants tend to reduce stomatal opening under water stress so that WUE is maximized at the expense of PNUE. Under limited availability of N, stomata may open further, increasing PNUE at the

FIGURE 28. The effect of stomatal conductance (gs) on the transpiration rate (E, mmol m–2 s–1), rate of CO2 assimilation (A, mmol m–2 s–1), intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci, mmol mol–1) and photosynthetic wateruse efficiency (WUE, mmol CO2 (mol H2O) –1 s–1) as a function of stomatal conductance. Calculations were made assuming a constant leaf temperature of 258C and a negligible boundary layer resistance. The arrow indicates gs at the co-limitation point of carboxylation and electron transport. For the calculations, Equations as described in Box 2A.1 and Sect. 2.2.2 have been used.

54

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

TABLE 5. Intrinsic water-use efficiency (WUE, A/gs) and nitrogen-use efficiency of photosynthesis (PNUE, A/NLA) of leaves of Helianthus annuus (sunflower), growing in a field in the middle of a hot, dry summer day in California.*

High N þ W Low W Low N

NLA Mmol m–2

A mmol m–2 s–1

gs mol m–2 s–1

Ci mmol mol–1

WUE mmol mol–1

PNUE mmol mol–1 s–1

190 180 130

37 25 27

1.2 0.4 1.0

240 200 260

31 63 27

195 139 208

Source: Fredeen et al. (1991). Plants were irrigated and fertilized (high N þ W), only irrigated but not fertilized (low N), or only fertilized but not irrigated (low W). Since transpiration is approximately linearly related to gs, A/gs is used as an approximation of WUE. *

expense of WUE (Table 5). This trade-off between efficient use of water or N explains why perennial species from lower-rainfall sites in eastern Australia have higher leaf N concentration, lower light-saturated photosynthetic rates at a given leaf N concentration, and lower stomatal conductance at a given rate of photosynthesis (implying lower Ci) when compared with similar species from higher-rainfall sites. By investing heavily in photosynthetic enzymes, a larger draw-down of Ci is achieved, and a given photosynthetic rate is possible at a lower stomatal conductance. The benefit of the strategy is that dry-site species reduce water loss at a given rate of photosynthesis, down to levels similar to wet-site species, despite occurring in lowerhumidity environments. The cost of high leaf N is higher costs incurred by N acquisition and possibly increased herbivory risk (Wright et al. 2001). When a plant is subjected to water stress, stomata tend to close. This response is regulated initially by abscisic acid (ABA), a phytohormone that is produced by roots in contact with dry soil and is transported to the leaves (Sect. 5.4.1 of Chapter 3 on plant water relations; Box 7.2). There are also effects that are not triggered by ABA arriving from the roots, mediated via ABA produced in the leaf (Holbrook et al. 2002, Christmann et al. 2005). In addition, both electrical and hydraulic signals control stomatal conductance in response to soil moisture availability (Grams et al. 2007). Stomatal conductance may also decline in response to increasing vapor pressure deficit (VPD) of the air (Sect. 5.4.3 of Chapter 3 on plant water relations). The result of these regulatory mechanisms is that, in many cases, transpiration is fairly constant over a range of VPDs, and leaf water potential is constant over a range of soil water potentials. Water loss is therefore restricted when dry air likely imposes water stress (a feedforward response) or when the plant experiences incipient water stress (a feedback response). In dry

environments these two regulatory mechanisms often cause midday stomatal closure and therefore a decline in photosynthesis (Fig. 34 in Chapter 3 on plant water relations). It was long assumed that stomata respond homogeneously over the entire leaf; however, leaves of water-stressed plants exposed to 14CO2 show often a heterogeneous distribution of fixed 14C. This shows that some stomata close completely (there is no radioactivity close to these stomata), whereas others hardly change their aperture (label is located near these stomata) (Downton et al. 1988, Terashima et al. 1988). This patchy stomatal closure can also be visualized dynamically and nondestructively with thermal and chlorophyll fluorescence imaging techniques (Mott & Buckley 2000); patches with closed stomata are identified by their high temperature and low quantum yield. Patchiness of stomatal opening complicates the calculation of Ci (Sect. 2.2.2), because the calculation assumes a homogeneous distribution of gas exchange parameters across the leaf lamina. Leaves of plants that reduce stomatal conductance during the middle of the day may only close some of their stomata, while others remain open. This nonuniform reaction of stomata may occur only when plants are rapidly exposed to water stress, whereas stomata may respond in a more uniform manner when the stress is imposed more slowly (Gunasekera & Berkowitz 1992). Stomatal patchiness can also occur in dark-adjusted leaves upon exposure to bright light (Eckstein et al. 1996, Mott & Buckley 2000).

5.2 The A–Cc Curve as Affected by Water Stress Water stress alters both the supply and the demand functions of photosynthesis (Flexas & Medrano

Responses to Availability of Water

55

FIGURE 29. The response of net photosynthesis to (A) intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci), and (B) CO2 concentration in the chloroplasts (Cc), for well watered (blue symbols) and severely water-stressed plants (purple symbols) (after Flexas et al. 2006b).

2002, Grassi & Magnani 2005), but the main effect is on stomatal and mesophyll conductance, unless the stress is very severe (Fig. 29; Flexas et al. 2004). When only the conductance declines with plant desiccation, the slope of the An—Cc curve is unaffected (Fig. 29B). Because high irradiance and high temperature often coincide with drought, however, photoinhibition may be involved which reduces the demand function. Similarly, if growth is inhibited more strongly than photosynthesis by water stress, feedback inhibition may play an additional role. The net effect of the down-regulation of photosynthetic capacity under severe water stress is that Cc is higher than would be expected if a decrease in conductance were the only factor causing a reduction in assimilation in water-stressed plants. The reduction in photosynthetic capacity allows photosynthesis to continue operating near the break-point between the RuBP-limited and the CO2-limited regions of the A—Cc curve. Thus drought-acclimated plants

maximize the effectiveness of both light and dark reactions of photosynthesis under dry conditions at the cost of reduced photosynthetic capacity under favorable conditions. The decline in photosynthetic capacity in water-stressed plants is associated with declines in all biochemical components of the photosynthetic process. The changes in stomatal regulation of gas exchange in species and cultivars that are genetically adapted to drought are similar to those described above for drought acclimation. Drought-adapted wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars have a lower stomatal conductance and operate at a lower Ci than do less adapted cultivars. In addition, stomatal conductance and photosynthesis in desert shrubs are lower than in less drought-adapted plants and they decline less in response to water stress, largely due to osmotic adjustment (Sect. 4.1 of Chapter 3 on plant water relations).

56

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

5.3 Carbon-Isotope Fractionation in Relation to Water-Use Efficiency Carbon-isotope composition of plant tissues provides an integrated measure of the photosynthetic water-use efficiency (WUE ¼ A/E) or, more precisely, the intrinsic WUE (A/gs) during the time when the carbon in these tissues was assimilated (Fig. 30). As explained in Box 2A.2, air has a 13C of approximately —8%, and the major steps in C3 photosynthesis that fractionate are diffusion (4.4%) and carboxylation (30%, including dissolution of CO2). The isotopic composition of a leaf will approach that of the process that most strongly limits photosynthesis. If stomata were almost closed and diffusion were the rate-limiting step, 13C of leaves would be about —12.4% (i.e., —8 þ —4.4); if carboxylation were the only limiting factor, we would expect a 13C of —38% (i.e., —8 + —30). A typical range of 13C in C3 plants is —25 to —29%, indicating co-limitation by diffusion and carboxylation (O’Leary 1993); however, 13C values vary among plant species and environment depending on the rate of CO2 assimilation and stomatal and mesophyll conductance. The fractionation, D13C, is defined as (Box 2A.2): D13 C ¼ ½4:4 þ 22:6ðCi =Ca Þ  103 ; or : 13 Cair  13 Cleaf ¼ 4:4 þ 22:6ðCi =Ca Þ;

(8)

which indicates that a high Ci/Ca (due to high stomatal conductance or low rate of CO2 assimilation) results in a large fractionation (strongly negative 13C). We can now use this information to estimate an integrated WUE for the plant, but we must be aware of one significant problem: Equation (8) uses

FIGURE 30. The relationship between carbon-isotope composition (13C) and (A) average intercellular CO2 concentration, and (B) daily photosynthetic water-use efficiency, assimilation/transpiration (A/E). The data

Ci, and does not take mesophyll conductance into account; it uses Ci, and assumes that the mesophyll conductance scales with stomatal conductance. Therefore, some of the fractionation data have to be interpreted with great care, because they may reflect differences in mesophyll conductance, rather than (only) stomatal conductance (Grassi & Magnani 2005, Warren & Adams 2006). The water-use efficiency (WUE ¼ An/E) is given by WUE ¼ An =E ¼ gc ðCa  Ci Þ=gw ðwi  wa Þ ¼ Ca ð1  Ci =Ca Þ=1:6ðwi  wa Þ

(9)

given that gw/gc ¼ 1.6 (the molar ratio of diffusion of water vapor and CO2 in air). Equation (9) tells us that the WUE is high, if the conductance is low in comparison with the capacity to assimilate CO2 in the mesophyll. Under these circumstances Ci (and Ci/Ca) will be small. The right-hand part of Equation (9) then approximates [Ca/(1.6(wi—wa)] and diffusion is the predominant component determining fractionation of carbon isotopes and approaches a value of 4.4%. On the other hand, if the stomatal conductance is large, WUE is small, Ci approximates Ca and the right-hand part of Equation (8) approaches 27%. Fractionation of the carbon isotopes is now largely due to the biochemical fractionation by Rubisco. Values for WUE thus obtained can only be compared at the same vapor pressure difference (wi—wa), e.g., within one experiment or a site at the same atmospheric conditions. Therefore, the WUE derived from 13C of plant carbon is mostly referred to as intrinsic WUE (An/gs), which is equivalent to a value normalized at a constant VPD of 1 mol mol—1.

points refer to mistletoes and host plants in central Australia (Ehleringer et al. 1985). Copyright by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Responses to Availability of Water

57

FIGURE 31. Association between dry mass and carbon-isotope fractionation in the F2 generation of Solanum lycopersicum x Solanum pennellii (tomato) grown in a wet and a dry environment in 1995 (A) and terminated early and late in 1996 (B). The regression is across the two environments in 1995, whereas in 1996 the regressions are for the early and the late environments separately (Martin et al. 1999). Copyright Crop Science Society of America.

As expected from the theoretical analysis above, there is a good correlation between WUE and the carbon-isotope fractionation (Fig. 30). Triticum aestivum (wheat) grown under dry conditions has a higher WUE and a lower carbon-isotope fractionation than plants well supplied with water (Farquhar & Richards 1984). Moreover, those genotypes that perform best under drought (greatest WUE) have the lowest carbon-isotope fractionation, so that isotopic composition can be used to select for genotypes with improved performance under conditions where water is limiting (Fig. 31). A similar correlation between WUE and 13C has been found for cultivars of other species [e.g., Hordeum vulgare (barley) (Hubick & Farquhar 1989) and Arachis hypogaea (peanut) (Wright et al. 1988, Hubick 1990)].

5.4 Other Sources of Variation in CarbonIsotope Ratios in C3 Plants Given the close relationship between WUE and 13C, carbon-isotopic composition can be used to infer average WUE during growth (Fig. 30; Sect. 6

of Chapter 3 on plant water relations). For example, 13C is higher (less negative) in desert plants than in mesic plants, and it is higher in tissue produced during dry seasons (Smedley et al. 1991) or in dry years. This indicates that plants growing in dry conditions have a lower Ci than those in moist conditions. Other factors can alter isotopic composition without altering WUE. For example, 13C of plant tissue is higher at the bottom than at the top of the canopy. This is to a limited extent due to the contribution of 13C-depleted CO2 from soil respiration, but mostly to the lower Ci of sunlit top leaves compared with the shaded understory leaves (Buchmann et al. 1997). A complicating factor with the derivation of WUE from 13C is that isotope fractionation is operating at the level of Rubisco in the chloroplast, whereas the theoretical model is based on Ci. Possible variation in the draw-down of CO2 from the intercellular spaces to the chloroplast (Sect. 2.2.3), due to the mesophyll resistance, is not taken into account, and may cause variation in 13C that is not associated with WUE. Annuals fractionate more strongly against 13C than perennials; additionally, herbs fractionate more than grasses, and root parasites [e.g.,

58

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

Comandra umbellata (pale bastard toadflax)] more than any of the surrounding species (Smedley et al. 1991). These patterns suggest a high stomatal conductance and low WUE in annuals, herbs, and hemiparasites. The low WUE of hemiparasitic plants is important in nutrient acquisition (Sect. 3 in Chapter 9D on parasitic associations).

6. Effects of Soil Nutrient Supply on Photosynthesis 6.1 The Photosynthesis–Nitrogen Relationship Since the photosynthetic machinery accounts for more than half of the N in a leaf (Fig. 13) and much of the remainder is indirectly associated with its photosynthetic function, photosynthesis is strongly affected by N availability. Amax increases linearly with leaf N per unit area (Fig. 32), regardless of whether the variation in leaf N is caused by differences in soil N availability, growth irradiance, or leaf age, and holds also when similar species are compared (Fig. 32). The slope of this relationship is much steeper for C4 plants than for C3 plants (Sect. 9.5), and differs also among C3 plants (Sect. 4.2.1 of Chapter 6 on mineral nutrition; Evans 1989). When leaves with different N concentration are compared of plants grown at different N availability, the photosynthetic rate per unit N (photosynthetic N-use efficiency; PNUE) at the growth irradiance is highest in leaves with low N concentrations. This is due to the higher degree of utilization of the photosynthetic apparatus (Fig. 33); hence, a higher efficiency at the expense of photosynthetic rate. The strong Amax vs. N relationship cannot be due to any simple direct N limitation of photosynthesis, because both carbon-isotope studies and A—Cc curves generally show that photosynthesis is co-limited by CO2 diffusion and photosynthetic capacity. Rather, the entire photosynthetic process is down-regulated under conditions of N limitation, with declines in Rubisco, chlorophyll, and stomatal conductance (Sect. 5.1, Table 5). The net effect of this coordinated response of all photosynthetic components is that Ci/Ca and 13C show no consistent relationship with leaf N (Rundel & Sharifi 1993). In some field studies, especially in conifers, which often grow on low-P soils, photosynthesis may show little correlation with tissue N, but a strong correlation with tissue [P] (Reich & Schoettle

FIGURE 32. The light-saturated rate of photosynthesis (Amax) of four grasses grown at high (filled symbols) and low (open symbols) N supply (A) and their photosynthetic N-use efficiency (PNUE) determined at growth irradiance (B) plotted against leaf N per unit area. Note the higher PNUE for plants grown at a low N supply. (C) The proportional utilization of the total photosynthetic capacity at growth irradiance, calculated as the ratio of the rate at growth irradiance and Amax in relation to Amax (Pons et al. 1994). Copyright SPB Academic Publishing.

1988). The low photosynthetic rate of plants grown at low P supply may reflect feedback inhibition due to slow growth and low concentrations of Pi in the cytosol (Sect. 4.1) or low concentrations of Rubisco and other photosynthetic enzymes.

Effects of Soil Nutrient Supply on Photosynthesis

59

FIGURE 33. Relations of (A) mass-based maximum rate of CO2 assimilation, (B) leaf N concentration, and (C) specific leaf area of young mature leaves as a function of

their expected leaf life-span. The symbols refer to a data set for 111 species from six biomes (after Reich et al. 1997).

6.2 Interactions of Nitrogen, Light, and Water

plants acclimate and adapt to low soil N and low soil moisture by producing long-lived leaves that are thicker and have a high leaf mass density, a low specific leaf area (SLA; i.e., leaf area per unit leaf mass) and a low leaf N concentration. Both broad-leaved and conifer species show a single strong negative correlation between leaf life-span and either leaf N concentration or mass-based photosynthetic rate (Fig. 33; Reich et al. 1997). The low SLA in long-lived leaves relates to structural properties required to withstand unfavorable environmental conditions (Chapter 7 on growth and allocation). There is a strong positive correlation between SLA and leaf N concentration for different data sets (Fig. 33). Together, the greater leaf thickness and low N concentrations per unit leaf mass result in low rates of photosynthesis on a leaf-mass basis in long-lived leaves (Fig. 33). Maximum stomatal conductance correlates strongly with leaf N, because gs scales with Amax (Wright et al. 2004).

Because of the coordinated responses of all photosynthetic processes, any environmental stress that reduces photosynthesis will reduce both the diffusional and the biochemical components (Table 5). Therefore, N concentration per unit leaf area is typically highest in sun leaves, and declines toward the bottom of a canopy. In canopies of Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco), this partially reflects higher rates of CO2 assimilation of young, high-N leaves in high-light environments (Boonman et al. 2007). In multi-species canopies, however, the low leaf [N] per area in understory species clearly reflects the adjustment of photosynthetic capacity to the reduced light availability (Table 5; Niinemets 2007).

6.3 Photosynthesis, Nitrogen, and Leaf Life Span As discussed in Chapter 6 on mineral nutrition and Chapter 7 on growth and allocation,

60

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

7. Photosynthesis and Leaf Temperature: Effects and Adaptations Temperature has a major effect on enzymatically catalyzed reactions and membrane processes, and therefore affects photosynthesis. Because the activation energy of different reactions often differs among plants acclimated or adapted to different temperature regimes, photosynthesis may be affected accordingly (for a discussion of the concepts of acclimation and adaptation, see Fig. 3 and Sect. 4 of Chapter 1 on assumptions and approaches). In this section temperature effects on photosynthesis will be explained in terms of underlying biochemical, biophysical, and molecular processes. Differences among plants in their capacity to perform at extreme temperatures often correlate with the plant’s capacity to photosynthesize at these temperatures. This may reflect both the adjustment of photosynthesis to the demand of the sinks (Sect. 4) and changes in the photosynthetic machinery during acclimation and adaptation.

7.1 Effects of High Temperatures on Photosynthesis Many plants exhibit an optimum temperature for photosynthesis close to their normal growth temperature, showing acclimation (Fig. 34; Berry &

FIGURE 34. Temperature dependence of light-saturated rates of photosynthesis of Plantago major (common plantain) grown at three temperatures. The black line connects measurements at the growth temperatures (after Atkin et al. 2006). Copyright Blackwell Science Ltd.

Bj¨orkman 1980, Yamori et al. 2005). Below this optimum, enzymatic reaction rates, primarily associated with the ‘‘dark reactions’’, are temperature limited. At high temperatures the oxygenating reaction of Rubisco increases more than the carboxylating one so that photorespiration becomes proportionally more important. This is partly because the solubility of CO2 declines with increasing temperature more strongly than does that of O2. Part of the effect of temperature on photosynthesis of C3 plants is due to the effects of temperature on kinetic properties of Rubisco. Vmax increases with increasing temperature, but the Km-values increase also, and more steeply for CO2 than for O2 (Fig. 35). This means that the affinity for CO2 decreases more strongly than that for O2. Additionally, electron transport (Cen & Sage 2005) and gm (Yamori et al. 2006a, Warren 2007) may decline at elevated temperatures. The combined temperature effects on solubility, affinity, and mesophyll conductance cause a proportional increase in photorespiration, resulting in a decline in net photosynthesis at high temperature when electron-transport rates cannot keep up with the increased inefficiency. Adaptation to high temperature typically causes a shift of the temperature optimum for net photosynthesis to higher temperatures (Fig. 36; Berry & Bjorkman 1980). Similarly, the temperature opti¨ mum for photosynthesis shifts to higher temperatures when coastal and desert populations of Atriplex lentiformis acclimate to high temperatures (Pearcy 1977). Apart from the increase in photorespiration discussed above, there are several other factors important for determining acclimation and adaptation of photosynthesis to temperature. In leaves of Spinacia oleracea (spinach) the Rubisco activation state decreases with increasing temperatures above the optimum temperatures for photosynthesis, irrespective of growth temperature, while the activation state remains high at lower temperatures. Rubisco thermal stabilities of spinach leaves grown at low temperature are lower than those of leaves grown at high temperature. Photosynthetic performance in spinach is largely determined by the Rubisco kinetics at low temperature and by Rubisco kinetics and Rubisco activation state at high temperature (Yamori et al. 2006b). Furthermore, Rubisco can become inactivated at moderately high temperatures. Species adapted to hot environments often show temperature optima for photosynthesis that are quite close to the temperature at which enzymes are inactivated. The lability of Rubisco activase plays a major role in the decline of photosynthesis at high temperatures (Salvucci & Crafts-Brandner 2004b, Hikosaka et al. 2006). Thermal acclimation of Acer rubrum (red

Photosynthesis and Leaf Temperature: Effects and Adaptations

61

FIGURE 35. Temperature dependence of Vmax and the Km of (A) the oxygenating and (B) the carboxylating reaction of Rubisco. Vmax is the rate of the carboxylating or oxygenating reaction at a saturating concentration of CO2 and O2, respectively. The Km is the concentration of CO2 and O2 at which the carboxylating and oxygenating reaction, respectively, proceed at the rate which equals 1/2Vmax. Note that a logarithmic scale is used for the y-axis and that the inverse of the absolute temperature is plotted on the x-axis (‘‘Arrhenius-plot’’). In such a graph, the slope gives the activation energy, a measure for the temperature dependence of the reaction (Berry

& Raison 1981). (C) The combined effects of temperature on kinetic properties as shown in (A) and (B) and relative solubility of O2 and CO2 (O/C) have been modeled, normalized to values at 208C. (D) Relative rates of the oxygenation and carboxylation reactions of Rubisco (Vo/Vc) and quantum yield (f CO2) modeled using the same parameter values as in (C). For calculation of Vo/ Vc and f CO2, it was assumed that partial pressures of CO2 and O2 in the chloroplast were 27 Pa and 21 kPa, respectively. Kinetic parameters used were calculated from Jordan and Ogren (1981) (courtesy I. Terashima, The University of Tokyo, Japan).

maple) from Florida in comparison with genotypes from Minnesota, US, is associated with maintenance of a high ratio of Rubisco activase to Rubisco (Weston et al. 2007). In Gossypium hirsutum (cotton) expression of the gene encoding Rubisco activase is influenced by post-transcriptional mechanisms that probably contribute to acclimation of photosynthesis during extended periods of heat stress (DeRidder & Salvucci 2007). High temperatures also require a high degree of saturation of the membrane lipids of the thylakoid for integrated functioning of its components and prevention of leakiness (Sharkey 2005). Therefore, not only Rubisco activity, but also membrane-bound processes of electron transport may be limiting photosynthesis at high temperatures.

7.2 Effects of Low Temperatures on Photosynthesis When plants grown at a moderate temperature are transferred to a lower temperature, but within the range normal for the growing season, photosynthesis is initially reduced (Fig. 34). Photon absorption is not affected by temperature, but the rate of electron transport and biochemical processes are reduced as a direct consequence of the lower temperature. Particularly, sucrose metabolism and/or phloem loading can become limiting for photosynthesis, causing feedback inhibition (Fig. 27). Acclimation to the lower growth temperature involves up-regulation of the limiting components of the photosynthetic apparatus. Hence, the capacity

62

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 36. Photosynthetic response to temperature in plants from contrasting temperature regimes. Curves from left to right are for Neuropogon acromelanus, an Antarctic lichen, Ambrosia chamissonis, a cool coastal

dune plant, Atriplex hymenelytra, an evergreen desert shrub, and Tidestromia obliongifolia, a summer-active desert perennial (after Mooney 1986).

for electron transport (Jmax) is increased, and Rubisco levels increase as well with the proportional increase in carboxylation capacity (Vcmax) (Atkin et al. 2006). Feedback inhibition is alleviated by increased expression of enzymes of the sucrose synthesis pathway (Stitt & Hurry 2002). Acclimation comprises therefore an increase in photosynthetic capacity which is associated with an increase in leaf thickness, whereas chlorophyll concentrations remains more or less similar, thus causing an increase in Amax per unit chlorophyll. The change is accompanied by a decrease in antenna size of PS II. Hence, acclimation to low temperature resembles to a considerable extent acclimation to high irradiance (Huner et al. 1998). In Plantago major (common plantain) species, the result of acclimation is that, just as with respiration (Fig. 17 in Chapter 2B on respiration), photosynthetic rates are virtually independent of growth temperature (Fig. 35). When cold is more extreme, damage is likely to occur. Many (sub)tropical plants grow poorly or become damaged at temperatures between 10 and 208C. Such damage is called ‘‘chilling injury’’ and differs from frost damage, which only occurs below 08C. Part of the chilling injury is associated with the photosynthetic apparatus. The following aspects play a role:

Chilling resistance probably involves reduced saturation of membrane fatty acids which increases membrane fluidity and so compensates for the effect of low temperature on membrane fluidity (Chapter 4B on effects of radiation and temperature). Chilling often leads to photoinhibition and photooxidation, because the biophysical reactions of photosynthesis (photon capture and transfer of excitation energy) are far less affected by temperature than the biochemical steps, including electron transport and activity of the Calvin cycle (Sect. 3.3). The leaves of evergreen plants in cold climates typically develop and expand during the warm spring and summer months, and are retained during the winter months when all growth ceases. Upon exposure to low temperature and high irradiance, the conversion of the light-harvesting violaxanthin to the energy-quenching zeaxanthin (Sect. 3.3.1) occurs within minutes. In addition to this ubiquitous process of ‘‘flexible dissipation’’, several forms of ‘‘sustained dissipation’’ exist. The sustained dissipation does not relax upon darkening of the leaves, but it is still DpH-dependent; it is flexible in the sense that, e.g., warming of leaves allows this state to be quickly reversed. The difference in the underlying mechanism between flexible and sustained DpH-independent dissipation is not related to zeaxanthin, because this xanthophyll is involved in both types of thermal dissipation (DemmigAdams & Adams 2006). Therefore, under lasting stress conditions and in some plant species, the flexible, DpH-independent engagement and disengagement of zeaxanthin in dissipation is replaced by a

1. Decrease in membrane fluidity 2. Changes in the activity of membrane-associated enzymes and processes, such as the photosynthetic electron transport 3. Loss of activity of cold-sensitive enzymes.

Effects of Air Pollutants on Photosynthesis

63

TABLE 6. Differences in the response of photosynthesis and photoprotection between crops/weeds and evergreens. Typical changes in intrinsic photosynthetic capacity, DpH-independent dissipation, zeaxanthin and antheraxanthin (Z þ A) retention, in annual crops/biennial weeds vs. evergreen species in response to transfer of shade-acclimated plants to high light or in response to the transition from summer to winter conditions. Shade to sun transfer Annual crop

Summer to winter transition

Evergreen

Tropical annual/biennial Crop/weed

Temperate evergreen

Photosynthetic capacity

"

#

"

##

DpH-independent dissipation ZþA retention

* *

"" ""

* *

"" ""

Source: Demmig-Adams & Adams (2006). Seen only transiently and at moderate levels upon transition.

*

highly effective, but less flexible continuous engagement of zeaxanthin in dissipation that does not require a DpH. It is not yet known which factors other than zeaxanthin are involved in the DpHdependent, less flexible, but potent form of dissipation that is particularly pronounced in long-lived, slow-growing evergreen species (Table 6). Hardening of Thuja plicata (western red cedar) seedlings (i.e., acclimation to low temperatures) is associated with some loss of chlorophyll and with increased levels of carotenoids, giving the leaves a red-brown color. Exposure to low temperatures causes a decline in photosynthetic capacity and the quantum yield of photosynthesis, as evidenced by the decline in chlorophyll fluorescence (i.e., in the ratio Fv/Fm; Box 2A.4). The carotenoids prevent damage that might otherwise occur as a result of photooxidation (Sect. 3.3.1). Upon transfer of the seedlings to a normal temperature (dehardening) the carotenoids disappear within a few days (Weger et al. 1993). Other temperate conifers such as Pinus banksiana (jack pine) exhibit ‘‘purpling’’, which is caused by the accumulation of anthocyanin in epidermal cells. This appears to protect the needles against photoinhibition of PS II through a simple screening of irradiance (Huner et al. 1998). Accumulation of photoprotective anthocyanins gives rise to typical autumn colors, e.g., in Cornus stolonifera (red-osier dogwood) (Feild et al. 2001). In the alpine and arctic species Oxyria digyna (alpine mountainsorrel), an increased resistance to photoinhibition is caused by an increased capacity to repair damaged PS II reaction centers and increased nonphotochemical quenching. Maximum rates of photosynthesis by arctic and alpine plants measured in the field are similar to those of temperate-zone species, but are reached at lower

temperatures—often 10—158C (Fig. 36). These substantial photosynthetic rates at low temperatures are achieved in part by high concentrations of Rubisco, as found in acclimation of lowland plants. This may account for the high tissue N concentration of arctic and alpine plants despite low N availability in soils (Korner & Larcher 1988). Although ¨ temperature optima of arctic and alpine plants are 10—308C lower than those of temperate plants, they are still 5—108C higher than average summer leaf temperatures in the field.

8. Effects of Air Pollutants on Photosynthesis Many air pollutants reduce plant growth, partly through their negative effects on photosynthesis. Pollutants like SO2 and ozone (O3) that enter the leaf through stomata, directly damage the photosynthetic cells of the leaf. In general, any factor that increases stomatal conductance (e.g., high supply of water, high light intensity, high N supply) increases the movement of pollutants into the plant, and therefore their impact on photosynthesis. At low [O3], decreased production Glycine max (soybean) corresponds to a decrease in leaf photosynthesis, but at higher [O3] the larger loss in production is associated with decreases in both leaf photosynthesis and leaf area (Morgan et al. 2003). Rates of net photosynthesis and stomatal conductance in Fagus sylvatica (beech) are about 25% lower when the O3 concentration is double that of the background concentration in Kranzberg Forest (Germany), while Vcmax is and gm are not affected (Warren et al. 2007). The major effect of SO2 on growth and yield of Vicia faba (faba bean) is due to leaf injury (necrosis

64

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

and abscission of leaves), rather than direct effects on gas exchange characteristics (photosynthesis and respiration) (Kropf 1989).

9. C4 Plants 9.1 Introduction The first sections of this chapter dealt primarily with the characteristics of photosynthesis of C3 species. There are also species with photosynthetic characteristics quite different from these C3 plants. These socalled C4 species belong to widely different taxonomic groups (Table 7); the C4 syndrome is very rare among tree species; Chamaesyce olowaluana (Euphorbiaceae) is a canopy-forming C4 tree from Hawaii (Sage 2004). Although their different anatomy has been well documented for over a century, the biochemistry and physiology of C4 species has been elucidated more recently. It is hard to say who first ‘‘discovered’’ the C4 pathway of photosynthesis

(Hatch & Slack 1998); however, Hatch & Slack (1966) certainly deserve credit for combining earlier pieces of information with their own findings and proposing the basic pathway as outlined in this section. None of the metabolic reactions or anatomical features of C4 plants are really unique to these species; however, they are all linked in a manner quite different from that in C3 species. Based on differences in biochemistry, physiology, and anatomy, three subtypes of C4 species are discerned (Table 8). In addition, there are intermediate forms between C3 and C4 metabolism (Sect. 9.6).

9.2 Biochemical and Anatomical Aspects The anatomy of C4 plants differs strikingly from that of C3 plants (Fig. 37). C4 plants are characterized by their Kranz anatomy, a sheath of thick-walled cells surrounding the vascular bundle (‘‘Kranz’’ is the German word for ‘‘wreath’’). These thick walls of the bundle sheath cells may be impregnated with suberin, but this does not appear to be essential to reduce

TABLE 7. The 19 families containing members with the C4 photosynthetic pathway.* Family

Number of lineages

Subtypes

Monocots Poaceae Cyperaceae Hydrocharitaceae

11 4 1

NADP-ME, NAD-ME, PCK NADP-ME, NAD-ME Single-cell NADP-ME

Acanthaceae Aizoaceae Amaranthaceae Asteraceae Boraginaceae Brassicaceae Caryophyllaceae Chenopodiaceae

1 2 3 3 1 1 1 10

Euphorbiaceae Gisekiaceae Molluginaceae Nyctaginaceae Polygonaceae Portulacaceae Scrophulariaceae Zygophyllaceae

1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2

– NADP-ME NADP-ME, NAD-ME NADP-ME NAD-ME – NAD-ME NADP-ME, NAD-ME & single-cell NAD-ME NADP-ME NAD-ME NAD-ME NAD-ME – NADP-ME, NAD-ME – NADP-ME

Dicots

Source: Sage (2004). * The number of lineages represents the putative times of independent evolution of C4 in the family. The biochemical subtypes (not known for all species) are as defined in Table 8 and Fig. 37. Single-cell C4 is explained in the text.

C4 Plants

65

TABLE 8. Main differences between the three subtypes of C4 species.* Major substrate moving from Subtype

Major decarboxylase in BSC

Decarboxylation occurs in

MC to BSC

BSC to MC

Photosystems in BSC

NADP-ME NAD-ME PCK

NADP-malic enzyme NAD-malic enzyme PEP carboxykinase

Chloroplast Mitochondria Cytosol

Malate Aspartate Aspartate þ malate

Pyruvate Alanine Alanine þ PEP

I and IIa I and II I and II

*

MC is mesophyll cells; BSC is vascular bundle sheath cells. Some NADP-ME monocots, including Zea mays (corn) have only PS I in BSC chloroplasts.

a

the gas diffusion between the bundle sheath and the mesophyll. In some C4 species (NADP-ME types), the cells of the bundle sheath contain large chloroplasts with mainly stroma thylakoids and very little grana. The bundle sheath cells are connected via plasmodesmata with the adjacent thin-walled mesophyll cells, with large intercellular spaces. CO2 is first assimilated in the mesophyll cells, catalyzed by PEP carboxylase, a light-activated enzyme, located in the cytosol. PEP carboxylase uses phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP) and HCO3 as substrates. HCO3 is formed by hydratation of CO2, catalyzed by carbonic anhydrase. The high affinity of PEP carboxylase for HCO3 reduces Ci to about 100 mmol mol—1, less than half the Ci of C3 plants (Sect. 2.2.2). PEP is produced in the light from pyruvate and ATP, catalyzed by pyruvate Pi-dikinase, a light-activated enzyme located in the

chloroplast. The product of the reaction catalyzed by PEP carboxylase is oxaloacetate, which is reduced to malate. Alternatively, oxaloacetate may be transaminated in a reaction with alanine, forming aspartate. Whether malate or aspartate, or a mixture of the two, are formed, depends on the subtype of the C4 species (Table 8). Malate (or aspartate) diffuses via plasmodesmata to the vascular bundle sheath cells, where it is decarboxylated, producing CO2 and pyruvate (or alanine). CO2 is then fixed by Rubisco in the chloroplasts of the bundle sheath cells, which have a normal Calvin cycle, as in C3 plants. Rubisco is not present in the mesophyll cells, which do not have a complete Calvin cycle and only store starch when the bundle sheath chloroplasts reach their maximum starch concentrations. Fixation of CO2 by PEP carboxylase and the subsequent decarboxylation occur relatively fast,

FIGURE 37. (Facing page) Schematic representation photosynthetic metabolism in the three C4 types distinguished according to the decarboxylating enzyme. NADP-ME, NADP-requiring malic enzyme; PCK, PEP carboxykinase; NAD-ME, NAD-requiring malic enzyme. Numbers refer to enzymes. (1) PEP carboxylase, (2) NADP-malate dehydrogenase, (3) NADP-malic enzyme, (4) pyruvate Pi-dikinase, (5) Rubisco, (6) PEP carboxykinase, (7) alanine aminotransferase, (8) aspartate amino transferase, (9) NAD-malate dehydrogenase, (10) NAD-malic enzyme (after Lawlor 1993). (Above) Cross-sections of leaves of monocotyledonous C4 grasses (Ghannoum et al. 2005). Chlorophyll a

autofluorescence of a leaf cross-section of (Left) Panicum miliaceum (French millet, NAD-ME), and (Right) Sorgum bicolor (millet, NAD-ME). The images were obtained using confocal microscopy. Cell walls are shown in green and chlorophyll a autofluorescence in red. Most of the autofluorescence emanates from bundle sheath cells in the NAD-ME species (Left) and from the mesophyll cells in the NADP-ME species (Right), showing the difference in chlorophyll distribution between the two subtypes (courtesy O. Ghannoum, Centre for Horticulture and Plant Sciences, University of Western Sydney, Australia). Copyright American Society of Plant Biologists.

66

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 37. (continued)

FIGURE 37. (continued)

C4 Plants allowing the build-up of a high concentration of CO2 in the vascular bundle sheath. When the outside CO2 concentration is 380 mmol mol—1, that at the site of Rubisco in the chloroplasts of the vascular bundle is 1000—2000 mmol mol—1. The Ci, that is the CO2 concentration in the intercellular spaces in the mesophyll, is only about 100 mmol mol—1. With such a steep gradient in the CO2 concentration it is inevitable that some CO2 diffuses back from the bundle sheath to the mesophyll, but this is only about 20%. In other words, C4 plants have a mechanism to enhance the CO2 concentration at the site of Rubisco to an extent that its oxygenation reaction is virtually fully inhibited. Consequently, C4 plants have negligible rates of photorespiration. Based on the enzyme involved in the decarboxylation of the C4 compounds transported to the vascular bundle sheath, three groups of C4 species are discerned: NADP-malic enzyme-, NAD-malic enzyme- and PEP carboxykinase-types (Table 8, Fig. 37). The difference in biochemistry is closely correlated with anatomical features of the bundle sheath and mesophyll of the leaf blade as viewed in transverse sections with the light microscope (Ellis 1977). In NAD-ME-subtypes, which decarboxylate malate (produced from imported aspartate) in the bundle sheath mitochondria, the mitochondrial frequency is several-fold higher than that in NADPME-subtypes. The specific activity of the mitochondrial enzymes involved in C4 photosynthesis is also greatly enhanced (Hatch & Carnal 1992). The NADME group of C4 species tends to occupy the driest habitats, although the reason for this is unclear (Ellis et al. 1980, Ehleringer & Monson 1993). Decarboxylation of malate occurs only during assimilation of CO2, and vice versa. The explanation for this is that the NADP needed to decarboxylate malate is produced in the Calvin cycle, during the assimilation of CO2. At least in the more ‘‘sophisticated’’ NADP-ME C4 plants such as Zea mays (corn) and Saccharum officinale (sugar cane), the NADPH required for the photosynthetic reduction of CO2 originates from the activity of NADP malic enzyme. Since two molecules of NADPH are required per molecule of CO2 fixed by Rubisco, this amount of NADPH is not sufficient for the assimilation of all CO2. Additional NADPH is required to an even larger extent if aspartate, or a combination of malate and aspartate, diffuses to the bundle sheath. It is assumed that this additional NADPH can be imported via a ‘‘shuttle’’, involving PGA and dihydroxyacetone phosphate (DHAP). Part of the PGA that originates in the bundle-sheath chloroplasts returns to the mesophyll. Here it is reduced, producing DHAP, which diffuses to the bundle sheath.

67 Alternatively, NADPH required in the bundle sheath cells might originate from the removal of electrons from water. This reaction requires the activity of PS II, next to PS I. PS II is only poorly developed in the bundle sheath cells, at least in the ‘‘more sophisticated’’ C4 species. The poor development of PS II activity in the bundle sheath indicates that very little O2 is evolved in these cells that contain Rubisco, which greatly favors the carboxylation reaction over the oxygenation. The formation of PEP from pyruvate in the mesophyll cells catalyzed by pyruvate Pi-dikinase, requires one molecule of ATP and produces AMP, instead of ADP; this corresponds to the equivalent of two molecules of ATP per molecule of PEP. This represents the metabolic costs of the CO2 pump of the C4 pathway. It reduces photosynthetic efficiency of C4 plants, when compared with that of C3 plants under nonphotorespiratory conditions. In summary, C4 photosynthesis concentrates CO2 at the site of carboxylation by Rubisco in the bundle sheath, but this is accomplished at a metabolic cost.

9.3 Intercellular and Intracellular Transport of Metabolites of the C4 Pathway Transport of the metabolites that move between the two cell types occurs by diffusion through plasmodesmata. The concentration gradient between the mesophyll and bundle sheath cells is sufficiently high to allow diffusion at a rate that readily sustains photosynthesis, with the exception of that of pyruvate. How can we account for rapid transport of pyruvate from the bundle sheath to the mesophyll if there is no concentration gradient? Uptake of pyruvate in the chloroplasts of the mesophyll cells is a light-dependent process, requiring a specific energy-dependent carrier. Active uptake of pyruvate into the chloroplast reduces the pyruvate concentration in the cytosol of these mesophyll cells to a low level, creating a concentration gradient that drives diffusion from the bundle sheath cells (Flu¨gge et al. 1985). In the chloroplasts of the mesophyll cells, pyruvate is converted into PEP, which is exported to the cytosol in exchange for Pi. The same translocator that facilitates this transport is probably also used to export triose-phosphate in exchange for PGA. This translocator operates in the reverse direction in mesophyll and bundle sheath chloroplasts, in that PGA is imported and triose-phosphate is exported in the mesophyll chloroplasts, while the chloroplasts in the bundle sheath export PGA and import triose phosphate.

68

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

The chloroplast envelope of the mesophyll cells also contains a translocator for the transport of dicarboxylates (malate, oxaloacetate, aspartate, and glutamate). Transport of these carboxylates occurs by exchange. The uptake of oxaloacetate, in exchange for other dicarboxylates, is competitively inhibited by these other dicarboxylates, with the values for Ki being in the same range as those for Km. [Ki is the inhibitor (i.e., dicarboxylate) concentration at which the inhibition of the transport process is half that of the maximum inhibition by that inhibitor; Km is the substrate (oxaloacetate) concentration at which the transport process occurs at half the maximum rate.] Such a system does not allow rapid import of oxaloacetate. A special transport system, transporting oxaloacetate without exchange against other dicarboxylates, takes care of rapid import of oxaloacetate into the mesophyll chloroplasts.

9.4 Photosynthetic Efficiency and Performance at High and Low Temperatures The differences in anatomy and biochemistry result in strikingly different An-Ci curves between C3 and

FIGURE 38. Response of net photosynthesis (An) to intercellular CO2 concentration in the mesophyll (Ci) of C3 and C4 plants. C3 plants respond strongly to O2 as shown by the lines for normal atmospheric (21%) and low (2%) O2 concentrations, whereas C4 plants do not. The CO2response curves were calculated based on models

C4. First, the CO2-compensation point of C4 plants is only 0—5 mmol mol—1 CO2, as compared with 40—50 mmol mol—1 in C3 plants (Fig. 38). Second, this compensation point is not affected by O2 concentration, as opposed to that of C3 plants which is considerably less at a low O2 concentration (i.e., when photorespiration is suppressed). Thirdly, the Ci (the internal concentration of CO2 in the mesophyll) at a Ca of 380 mmol mol—1 is only about 100 mmol mol—1, compared with approximately 250 mmol mol—1 in C3 plants (Fig. 38). There are also major differences in the characteristics of the light-response curves of CO2 assimilation of C3 and C4 species. The initial slope of the light-response represents the light-limited part and is referred to as the quantum yield. Photochemical activity is limited by the rate of electron transport under these conditions. Changes in quantum yield are thus caused by changes in the partitioning between carboxylation and oxygenation reactions of Rubisco. When measured at 308C or higher, the quantum yield is considerably higher for C4 plants and independent of the O2 concentration, in contrast to that of C3 plants. Therefore, at relatively high temperatures, the quantum yield of photosynthesis

described by Von Caemmerer (2000). Parameter values for the C3 model were Vcmax ¼ 150 and Jmax ¼ 225 mmol m–2 s–1 (see Box 2A.1), and in the C4 model Vcmax ¼ 60 and Vpmax ¼ 120 mmol m–2 s–1, where Vpmax is the maximum PEP carboxylase activity. Arrows indicate typical Ci values at 380 mmol CO2 mol–1air.

C4 Plants

69

FIGURE 39. The effect of temperature and the intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci) on the quantum yield of the ¨ 1977). photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in a C3 and a C4 plant (after Ehleringer & Bjorkman

is higher for C4 plants, and is not affected by temperature. By contrast, the quantum yield of C3 plants declines with increasing temperature, due to the proportionally increasing oxygenating activity of Rubisco (Fig. 39). At an atmospheric O2 and CO2 concentration of 21% and 350 mmol mol—1, respectively, the quantum yield is higher for C4 plants at high temperatures due to photorespiration in C3 species, but lower at low temperatures due to the additional ATP required to regenerate PEP in C4 species. When measured at a low O2 concentration

(to suppress photorespiration) and a Ca of 350 mmol mol—1, the quantum yield is invariably higher for C3 plants. The rate of CO2 assimilation of C4 plants typically saturates at higher irradiance than that of C3 plants, because Amax of C4 plants is generally higher. This is facilitated by a high Cc, the CO2 concentration at the site of Rubisco. In C3 plants with their generally lower Amax, the light-response curve levels off at lower irradiances, because CO2 becomes the limiting factor for the net CO2 assimilation. At

TABLE 9. Variation in kinetic parameters of the ubiquitous carboxylating enzyme Rubisco at 258C for eight species in four groups.* K m (CO2)

Cyanobacteria Synechococcus Green algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii C4 terrestrial plants Amaranthus hybridus Sorghum bicolor Zea mays C3 terrestrial plants Triticum aestivum Spinacia oleracea Nicotiana tabacum

Presence of CCM

In water mM

In air mmol mol–1

kcat S–1

þ

293

–

12.5

þ

29

–

5.8

þ þ þ

16 30 34

480 900 1020

3.8 5.4 4.4

– – –

14 14 11

420 420 330

2.5 3.7 3.4

Source: Tcherkez et al (2006). Shown are the Michaelis–Menten constant Km(CO2), inversely related to substrate (CO2) affinity, and the catalytic turnover rate at saturating CO2 (kcat, mol CO2 (mol catalytic sites)–1. Km(CO2) in air is calculated from the value provided for water using the solubility of CO2 at 258C (33.5 mmol L–1 at standard atmospheric pressure). CCM ¼ carbon-concentrating mechanism. *

70

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport TABLE 10. The number of chloroplasts and of mitochondria plus peroxisomes in bundle sheath cells compared with those in mesophyll cells (BSC/MC) and the CO2-compensation point (, mmol mol–1, of C3, C4, and C3–C4 intermediates belonging to the genera Panicum, Neurachne, Flaveria, and Moricandia. BSC/MC Species P. milioides P. miliaceum N. minor N. munroi N. tenuifolia F. anomala F. floridana F. linearis F. oppositifolia F. brownii F. trinerva F. pringlei M. arvensis M. spinosa M. foleyi M. moricandioides

Photosynthetic pathway

Chloroplasts

Mitochondria þ peroxisomes



C3–C4 C4 C3–C4 C4 C3 C3–C4 C3–C4 C3–C4 C3–C4 C4-like C4 C3 C3–C4 C3–C4 C3 C3

0.9 1.1 3.1 0.8 0.6 0.9 1.4 2.0 1.4 4.2 2.2 0.5 1.4 1.6 1.5 2.0

2.4 8.4 20.0 4.9 1.2 2.3 5.0 3.6 3.6 7.9 2.4 1.0 5.2 6.0 3.3 2.8

19 1 4 1 43 9 3 12 14 2 0 43 32 25 51 52

Source: Brown & Hattersley (1989).

increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations the irradiance at which light saturation is reached shifts to higher levels also in C3 plants. The high concentration of CO2 in the vascular bundle sheath of C4-plants, the site of Rubisco, allows different kinetic properties of Rubisco. Table 9 shows that indeed the Km(CO2) of Rubisco from terrestrial C3 plants is lower than that from C4 plants. A high Km, that is a low affinity, for CO2 of Rubisco is not a disadvantage for the photosynthesis of C4 plants, considering the high Cc in de the bundle sheath. For C3 plants a low Km for CO2 is vital, since the Ci is far from saturating for Rubisco in their mesophyll cells. The advantage of the high Km of the C4 Rubisco is thought to be indirect in that it allows a high maximum rate per unit protein of the enzyme (Vmax or kcat). That is, the tighter CO2 is bound to Rubisco, the longer it takes for the carboxylation to be completed. In C3 plants, a high affinity is essential, so that kcat cannot be high. C4 plants, which do not require a high affinity, do indeed have an enzyme with a high kcat, allowing more moles of CO2 to be fixed per unit Rubisco and time at the high Cc (Table 10). Interestingly, the alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, which has a CO2-concentrating mechanism (Sect. 11.3), also has a Rubisco enzyme with a high Km (low affinity) for CO2 and a high Vmax and kcat (Table 10). Apparently, there is a trade-

off in Rubisco between CO2 specificity [a low Km(CO2)] and catalytic capacity (a high kcat). The biochemical and physiological differences between C4 and C3 plants have important ecological implications. The abundance of C4 monocots in regional floras correlates most strongly with growing season temperature, whereas C4 dicot abundance correlates more strongly with aridity and salinity (Ehleringer & Monson 1993). At regional and local scales, areas with warm-season rainfall have greater C4 abundance than regions with coolseason precipitation. Along local gradients, C4 species occupy microsites that are warmest or have driest soils. In communities with both C3 and C4 species, C3 species are most active early in the growing season when conditions are cool and moist, whereas C4 activity increases as conditions become warmer and drier. Together these patterns suggest that high photosynthetic rates at high temperature (due to lack of photorespiration) and high water-use efficiency (WUE) (due to the low Ci, which enables C4 plants to have a lower stomatal conductance for the same CO2 assimilation rate) are the major factors governing the ecological distribution of the C4 photosynthetic pathway. Any competitive advantage of the high WUE of C4 plants, however, has been difficult to document experimentally (Ehleringer & Monson 1993). This

C4 Plants

71 of activity of pyruvate Pi-dikinase at low temperatures can be prevented by protective (‘‘compatible’’) compounds (Sect. 3.4.5 of Chapter 3 on plant water relations), but it remains to be investigated if this plays a major role in intact C4 plants (Krall et al. 1989).

may well be due to the fact that, in a competitive situation, any water that is left in the soil by a plant with a high WUE is available for a competitor with lower WUE. Although WUE of C4 plants is higher, the C4 pathway does not give them a higher drought tolerance. C4 plants generally have lower tissue N concentrations, because they have 3—6 times less Rubisco than C4 plants and very low levels of the photorespiratory enzymes, though some of the advantage is lost by the investment of N in the enzymes of the C4 pathway. C4 plants also have equivalent or higher photosynthetic rates than C3 plants, resulting in a higher rate of photosynthesis per unit of leaf N (Photosynthetic N-Use Efficiency, PNUE), especially at high temperatures (Fig. 40). The higher PNUE of C4 plants is accounted for by: (1) suppression of the oxygenase activity of Rubisco, so that the enzyme is only used for the carboxylation reaction; (2) the lack of photorespiratory enzymes; (3) the higher catalytic activity of Rubisco due to its high kcat and the high Cc (Table 10). Just as in a comparison of C3 species that differ in PNUE (Sect. 4.2.1 of Chapter 6 on mineral nutrition), there is no consistent tendency of C4 species to have increased abundance or a competitive advantage in low-N soils (Christie & Detling 1982, Sage & Pearcy 1987a). This suggests that the high PNUE of C4 species is less important than their high WUE and high optimum temperature of photosynthesis in explaining patterns of distribution. One of the key enzymes of the C4 pathway in Zea mays (corn), pyruvate Pi-dikinase, readily loses its activity at low temperature and hence the leaves’ photosynthetic capacity declines. This accounts for part of the chilling sensitivity of most C4 plants. Loss

In the beginning of the 1970s, when the C4 pathway was unraveled, there were attempts to cross C3 and C4 species of Atriplex (saltbush). This was considered a useful approach to enhance the rate or efficiency of photosynthesis and yield of C3 parents. The complexity of anatomy and biochemistry of the C4 plants, however, is such, that these crosses have not produced any useful progeny (Brown & Bouton 1993). Since molecular techniques have become available which allow silencing and over-expression of specific genes in specific cells, attempts have been made to reduce the activity of glycine decarboxylase, the key enzyme in photorespiration, in mesophyll cells of C3 plants and over-express the gene in the bundle sheath. Although these attempts have been successful from a molecular point of view in that the aim of selectively modifying the enzyme activity was achieved, no results have yet been obtained to show enhanced rates of photosynthesis. This is perhaps not unexpected, in view of the rather small advantage true C3—C4 intermediates are likely to have in comparison with C3 relatives. Further attempts to transform C3 crops into C4 were inspired by the discovery of plants that perform a C4 pathway without intercellular compartmentation between mesophyll and bundlesheath. Suaeda aralocaspica (formerly known as Borszczowia aralocas-

FIGURE 40. The rate of CO2 assimilation as a function of the organic N concentration in the leaf and the temperature, as measured for the C3 plant Chenopodium album

(pigweed, circles) and the C4 plant Amaranthus retroflexus (triangles) (after Sage & Pearcy 1987b). Copyright American Society of Plant Biologists.

9.5 C3–C4 Intermediates

72

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

pica, seepweed) and Bienertia cycloptera have the complete C4 cycle operating in mesophyll cells. PEP carboxylation and regeneration occur at the distal ends of the cell exposed to the intercellular air spaces. The C4 acids produced must therefore diffuse from here to the opposite, proximal end of the cell where they are decarboxylated. An elongated vacuole provides high resistance to CO2 efflux and thus CO2 accumulates where Rubisco is located. In this regard, the general layout of these C3—C4 intermediates is similar to that of Kranz-type C4 plants, the major difference being the lack of a cell wall segregating the PCA and PCR compartments (Sage 2002, 2004). The existence of single-cell C4 in terrestrial plants opens new possibilities for introducing the C4 pathway in C3 crops, because it does not require complicated anatomical changes (Surridge 2002). Over 20 plant species exhibit photosynthetic traits that are intermediate between C3 and C4 plants (e.g., species in the genera Alternanthera, Flaveria, Neurachne, Moricandia, Panicum, and Parthenium). These show reduced rates ofphotorespiration and CO2-compensation points in the range of 8 to 35 mmol mol—1, compared with 40—50 mmol mol—1 in C3 and 0 to 5 mmol mol—1 in C4 plants (Table 10). They have a weakly developed Kranz anatomy, compared with the true C4 species, but Rubisco is located both in the mesophyll and the bundle sheath cells (Brown & Bouton 1993).

Two main types of intermediates are distinguished. In the first type (e.g., Alternanthera ficoides, Alternanthera enella, Moricandia arvensis, and Panicum milioides) the activity of key enzymes of the C4 pathway is very low, and they do not have a functional C4 acid cycle. Their low CO2-compensation point is due to the light-dependent recapture by mesophyll cells of CO2 released in photorespiration in the bundle sheath cells, which contain a large fraction of the organelles involved in photorespiration, compared with that in C3 species (Table 10). In these C3—C4 intermediates a system has evolved to salvage CO2 escaping from the bundle sheath cells, but they do not have the CO2-concentrating mechanism of true C4 species (Ehleringer & Monson 1993). In the leaves of this type of intermediate species, glycine decarboxylase, a key enzyme in photorespiration that releases the photorespiratory CO2, occurs exclusively in the cells surrounding the vascular bundle sheath (Morgan et al. 1992). Products of the oxygenation reaction, including glycine, probably move to the bundle sheath cells. Presumably, the products are metabolized in the bundle sheath, so that serine can move back to the mesophyll (Fig. 41). Due to the exclusive location of glycine decarboxylase in the bundle sheath cells, the release of CO2 in photorespiration occurs close to the vascular tissue, with chloroplasts occurring between these mitochondria and the intercellular spaces.

FIGURE 41. A model of the photorespiratory metabolism in leaves of the C3–C4 intermediate Moricandia arvensis, showing the recapture of CO2 released by glycine decarboxylase. The model accounts for the low

CO2-compensation point and the low apparent rate of photorespiration in this type of intermediate (Morgan et al. 1992). Copyright SPB Academic Publishing.

C4 Plants Glycine decarboxylase is only found in the enlarged mitochondria arranged along the cell walls adjacent to the vascular tissue and overlain by chloroplasts. This location of glycine decarboxylase increases the diffusion path for CO2 between the site of release and the atmosphere and allows the recapture of a large fraction of the photorespiratory CO2, released by glycine decarboxylase, by Rubisco located in the bundle sheath. The location of glycine decarboxylase in the bundle sheath allows some build-up of CO2, but not to the same extent as in the true C4 plants. Since the oxygenation reaction of Rubisco is only suppressed in the bundle sheath, and there probably only partly, whereas oxygenation in the mesophyll cells occurs to the same extent as in C3 plants, the advantage in terms of the net rate of CO2 assimilation is rather small, compared with that in a true C4 plant (Von Caemmerer 1989). In the second type of intermediate species (e.g., Flaveria anomala and Neurachne minor), the activity of key enzymes of the C4 pathway is considerable. Rapid fixation of 14CO2 into C4 acids, followed by transfer of the label to Calvin-cycle intermediates, has been demonstrated. These species have a limited capacity for C4 photosynthesis, but lower quantum yields than either C3 or C4, presumably because the operation of the C4 cycle in these plants does not really lead to a concentration of CO2 to the extent it does in true C4 species. In addition to the C3—C4 intermediate species, there are some species [e.g., Eleocharis vivipara (sprouting spikerush) and Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco)] that are capable of either C3 or C4 photosynthesis in different tissues (Ueno et al. 1988, Ueno 2001). Tobacco, a typical C3 plant, shows characteristics of C4 photosynthesis in cells of stems and petioles that surround the xylem and phloem; these cells are supplied with carbon for photosynthesis from the vascular system, and not from stomata. These photosynthetic cells possess high activities of enzymes characteristic of C4 photosynthesis which allows the decarboxylation of four-carbon organic acids from the xylem and phloem, thus releasing CO2 for photosynthesis (Hibberd & Quick 2002). C4 plants that can shift to a CAM mode occur in the genus Portulaca (Sect. 10.4).

9.6 Evolution and Distribution of C4 Species C4 species represent approximately 5% of all higher plant species, C3 species accounting for about 85% and CAM species (Sect. 10) for 10%. C4 photosynthesis first arose in grasses, 24—35 million years ago,

73 and in dicots 15—21 million years ago (Sage 2004). However, it took several millions of years before the C4 pathway spread on several continents and became dominant over large areas, between 8 and 6 million years ago, as indicated by changes in the carbon-isotope ratios of fossil tooth enamel in Asia, Africa, North America, and South America (Cerling et al. 1997). A decreasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, as a result of the photosynthetic activity of plants and possibly much more so due to tectonic and subsequent geochemical events, has been a significant factor contributing to C4 evolution. Briefly, the collision of the Indian subcontinent caused the uplift of the Tibetan Plateau. With this, Earth crust consuming CO2 became exposed over a vast area. The reaction CaSiO3 þ CO2 CaCO3 þ SiO2 is responsible for the dramatic decline in atmospheric CO2 concentration (Raymo & Ruddiman 1992, Ehleringer & Monson 1993). Since CO2 levels were already low when the first C4 plants evolved, other factors must have been responsible for the rapid spread of C4 plants many millions of years after they first arose. The universal carboxylating enzyme Rubisco does not operate efficiently at the present low CO2 and high O2 atmospheric conditions. Low atmospheric CO2 concentrations would increase photorespiration and thus favor the CO2-concentrating mechanisms and lack of photorespiration that characterize C4 species. Considering the three subtypes of C4 species and their occurrence in at least 19 different families of widely different taxonomic groups, C4 plants must have evolved from C3 ancestors independently about 48 times on different continents (convergent evolution) (Table 7). Morphological and eco-geographical information combined with molecular evidence suggests that C4 photosynthesis has evolved twice in different lineages within the genus Flaveria (Sage 2004). The physiology of C3—C4 intermediates suggests that the mechanism to recapture CO2 evolved before the CO2-concentrating mechanism (Sect. 9.5). The phylogeny of Flaveria species, as deduced from an analysis of the nucleotide sequences encoding a subunit of glycine decarboxylase, suggests that C4 species originated from C3—C4 intermediates, and that C4 in this genus developed relatively recently (Sage 2004). C4 photosynthesis originated in arid regions of low latitude, where high temperatures in combination with drought and/or salinity, due to a globally drying climate and increased fire frequency, promoted the spread of C4 plants (Keeley & Rundel 2005, Beerling & Osborne 2006). A major role for climatic factors as the driving force for C4 evolution is also indicated by C4 distributions in

74

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport FIGURE 42. Geographic distribution of C4 species in North America. Left: percentage of grass taxa that are C4 plants. Right: percentage of dicotyledon taxa that are C4 plants in regional floras of North America (Teeri & Stowe 1976, and Stowe & Teeri 1978, as cited in Osmond et al. 1982).

Mesoamerican sites that have experienced contrasting moisture variations since the last glacial maximum. Analyses of the carbon-isotope composition of leaf wax components indicate that regional climate exerts a strong control over the relative abundance of C3 and C4 species, and that in the absence of favorable moisture and temperature conditions a low atmospheric CO2 concentration alone does not favor C4 expansion (Huang et al. 2001). Low altitudes in tropical areas continue to be centers of distribution of C4 species. Tropical and temperate lowland grasslands, with abundant warm-season precipitation, are dominated by C4 species. At higher elevations in these regions C3 species are dominant, both in cover and in composition, for example on the summits of the Drakenberg in South Africa (Vogel et al. 1978) and on highland

plains in a temperate arid region of Argentinia (Cavagnaro 1988). The high concentration of CO2 at the site of Rubisco, allows net CO2 assimilation at relatively high temperatures, where photorespiration results in low net photosynthesis of C3 species due to the increased oxygenating activity of Rubisco. This explains why C4 species naturally occur in warm, open ecosystems, where C3 species are less successful (Figs. 42 and 43). There is no a priori reason, however, why C4 photosynthesis could not function in cooler climates. The lower quantum yield of C4 species at low temperature would be important in dense canopies where light limits photosynthesis (and where quantum yield is therefore important). Quantum yield, however, is less important at higher levels of irradiance, and there is quite a wide tem-

FIGURE 43. Left: The percentage occurrence of C4 metabolism in grass floras of Australia in relation to temperature in the growing season (January). Right: The

percentage occurrence of C4 grass species of the three metabolic types in regional floras in Australia in relation to median annual rainfall (Henderson et al. 1995).

CAM Plants perature range where the quantum yield is still high compared with that of C3 plants (Fig. 39). The high sensitivity to low temperature of pyruvate Pidikinase, a key enzyme in the C4 pathway may be the main reason why C4 species have rarely expanded to cooler places (Sect. 7.2). Compatible solutes can decrease the low-temperature sensitivity of this enzyme and this could allow the expansion of C4 species into more temperate regions in the future. Alternatively, rising atmospheric CO2 concentration may offset the advantages of the CO2-concentrating mechanism of C4 photosynthesis (Sect. 12).

9.7 Carbon-Isotope Composition of C4 Species Although Rubisco of C4 plants discriminates between 12CO2 and 13CO2, just like that of C3 plants, the fractionation in C4 species is considerably less than that in C3 plants. This is explained by the small extent to which inorganic carbon diffuses back from the vascular bundle to the mesophyll (Sect. 9.2). Moreover, the inorganic carbon that does diffuse back to the mesophyll cells will be refixed by PEP carboxylase, which has a very high affinity for bicarbonate (Box 2A.2). Most of the 13CO2 that accumulates in the bundle sheath is ultimately assimilated; hence the isotope fractionation of CO2 is very small in C4 species (Fig. 44). The isotopic differences between C3 and C4 plants (Fig. 44) are large compared with isotopic changes occurring during digestion by herbivores or decomposition by soil microbes. This makes it possible to determine the relative abundance of C3 and C4 species in the diets of animals by analyzing tissue samples of animals (‘‘You are what you eat’’) or as sources of soil organic matter in paleosols (old soils). These studies have shown that many general-

75 ist herbivores show a preference for C3 rather than C4 plants (Ehleringer & Monson 1993). C3 species, however, also tend to have more toxic secondary metabolites, which cause other herbivores to show exactly the opposite preference.

10. CAM Plants 10.1 Introduction In addition to C3 and C4 species, there are many succulent plants with another photosynthetic pathway: Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM). This pathway is named after the Crassulaceae, a family in which many species show this type of metabolism. CAM, however, also occurs commonly in other families, such as the Cactaceae, Euphorbiaceae, Orchidaceae, and Bromeliaceae [e.g., Ananas comosus (pineapple)]. There are about 10000 CAM species from 25 to 30 families (Table 11), all angiosperms, with the exception of a few fern species that also have CAM characteristics. The unusual capacity of CAM plants to fix CO2 into organic acids in the dark, causing nocturnal acidification, with de-acidification during the day, has been known for almost two centuries. A full appreciation of CAM as a photosynthetic process was greatly stimulated by analogies with C4 species. The productivity of most CAM plants is fairly low. This is not an inherent trait of CAM species, however, because some cultivated CAM plants (e.g., Agave mapisaga and Agave salmiana) may achieve an average above-ground productivity of 4 kg dry mass m—2yr—1. An even higher productivity has been observed for irrigated, fertilized, and carefully pruned Opuntia amyclea and Opuntia ficus-indica TABLE 11. Taxonomic survey of flowering plant families known to have species showing crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) in different taxa.

FIGURE 44. The carbon-isotope composition of C3, C4, and CAM plants (Sternberg et al. 1984).

Agavaceae Aizoaceae Asclepidiaceae Asteraceae Bromeliaceae Cactaceae Clusiaceae Crassulaceae Cucurbitaceae Didieraceae Euphorbiaceae

Geraniaceae Gesneriaceae Labiatae Liliaceae Oxalidaceae Orchidaceae Piperaceae Polypodiaceae Portulacaceae Rubiaceae Vitaceae

Source: Kluge & Ting (1978) and Medina (1996).

76

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

(prickly pears) (4.6 kg m—2 yr—1; Nobel et al. 1992). These are among the highest productivities reported for any species. In a comparison of two succulent species with similar growth forms, Cotyledon orbiculata (pig’s ear) (CAM) and Othonna optima (C3), during the transition from the rainy season to subsequent drought, the daily net rate of CO2 assimilation is similar for the two species. This shows that rates of photosynthesis of CAM plants may be as high as those of C3 plants, if morphologically similar plants adapted to the similar habitats are compared (Eller & Ferrari 1997). As with C4 plants, none of the enzymes or metabolic reactions of CAM are really unique to these species. The reactions proceed at different times of the day, however, quite distinct from C3 and C4 species. Based on differences in the major decarboxylating enzyme, two subtypes of CAM species are discerned (Sect. 10.2). In addition, there are intermediate forms between C3 and CAM, as well as facultative CAM plants (Sect. 10.4).

10.2 Physiological, Biochemical, and Anatomical Aspects CAM plants are characterized by their succulence (but this is not pronounced in epiphytic CAM plants; Sect. 10.5), the capacity to fix CO2 at night via PEP carboxylase, the accumulation of malic acid in the vacuole, and subsequent de-acidification during the day, when CO2 is released from malic acid and fixed in the Calvin cycle, using Rubisco. CAM plants show a strong fluctuation in pH of the cell sap, due to the synthesis and breakdown of malic acid. The concentration of this acid may increase to 100 mM. By isolating vacuoles of the CAM plant Kalanchoe daigremontiana (devil’s backbone), it was shown that at least 90% of all the acid in the cells is in the vacuole. The kinetics of malic acid efflux from the leaves of Kalanchoe daigremontiana provides further evidence for the predominant location of malic acid in the vacuole. At night, CO2 is fixed in the cytosol, catalyzed by PEP carboxylase, producing oxaloacetate (Fig. 45). PEP originates from the breakdown of glucose in glycolysis; glucose is formed from starch. Oxaloacetate is immediately reduced to malate, catalyzed by malate dehydrogenase. Malate is transported to the large vacuoles in an energy-dependent manner. A H+-ATPase and a pyrophosphatase pump H+ into the vacuole, so that malate can move down an electrochemical potential gradient (Sect. 2.2.2 of Chapter

6 on mineral nutrition). In the vacuole it will be present as malic acid. The release of malic acid from the vacuole during the day is supposedly passive. Upon release it is decarboxylated, catalyzed by malic enzyme (NAD- or NADP-dependent), or by PEP carboxykinase (PEPCK). Like C4 species, CAM species are subdivided depending on the decarboxylating enzyme. The malic enzyme subtypes (ME-CAM) have a cytosolic NADP-malic enzyme, as well as a mitochondrial NAD-malic enzyme; they use a chloroplastic pyruvate Pi-dikinase to convert the C3 fragment originating from the decarboxylation reaction into carbohydrate via PEP. PEPCK-type CAM plants have very low malic enzyme activities (as opposed to PEPCK-C4 plants) and no pyruvate Pi-dikinase activity, but high activities of PEP carboxykinase. The C3 fragment (pyruvate or PEP) that is formed during the decarboxylation, is converted into starch and the CO2 that is released is fixed by Rubisco, much the same as in C3 plants. During the decarboxylation of malic acid and the fixation of CO2 by Rubisco in the Calvin cycle, the stomata are closed. They are open during the nocturnal fixation of CO2. The CAM traits can be summarized as follows: 1. Fluctuation of organic acids, mainly of malic acid, during a diurnal cycle; 2. Fluctuation of the concentration of sugars and starch, opposite to the fluctuation of malic acid; 3. A high activity of PEP carboxylase (at night) and of a decarboxylase (during the day); 4. Large vacuoles in cells containing chloroplasts; 5. Some degree of succulence; 6. The CO2 assimilation by the leaves occurs predominantly at night. Four ‘‘phases’’ in the diurnal pattern of CAM are discerned (Fig. 46). Phase I, the carboxylation phase, starts at the beginning of the night. Toward the end of the night, the rate of carboxylation declines and the malic acid concentration reaches its maximum. The stomatal conductance and the CO2 fixation change more or less in parallel. During phase I, carbohydrates are broken down. Phase II, at the beginning of the day, is characterized by a high rate of CO2 fixation, generally coinciding with an increased stomatal conductance. CO2 fixation by PEP carboxylase and malic acid formation coincide with the fixation of CO2 by Rubisco. Gradually, fixation by PEP carboxylase is taken over by fixation by Rubisco. In the last part of phase II, C3 photosynthesis predominates, using exogenous CO2 as the substrate. Phase II typically occurs

CAM Plants

77

FIGURE 45. Metabolic pathway and cellular compartmentation of Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM), showing the separation in night and day of

carboxylation and decarboxylation. The steps specific for PEPCK-CAM plants are depicted in red.

under laboratory conditions, following an abrupt dark-to-light transition, but is not apparent under natural conditions. In phase III the stomata are fully closed and malic acid is decarboxylated. The Ci may then increase to values above 10000 mmol mol—1. This is when normal C3 photosynthesis takes place and when sugars and starch accumulate. When malic acid is depleted, the stomata open again, possibly because Ci drops to a low level; this is the beginning of phase IV. Gradually more exogenous and less endogenous CO2 is being fixed by Rubisco. In this last phase, CO2 may be fixed by PEP carboxylase again, as indicated by the

photosynthetic quotient (PQ), i.e., the ratio of O2 release and CO2 uptake. Over an entire day the PQ is about 1 (Table 12), but deviations from this value occur, depending on the carboxylation process (Fig. 47). In phase III, when the stomata are fully closed, malic acid is decarboxylated, and the Ci is very high, photorespiration is suppressed, as indicated by the relatively slow rate of O2 uptake (as measured using 18 O2; Fig. 47). In phase IV, when malic acid is depleted and the stomata open again, photorespiration does occur, as demonstrated by increased uptake of 18O2.

78

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport FIGURE 46. CO2 fixation in CAM plants, showing diurnal patterns for net CO2 assimilation, malic acid concentration and carbohydrate concentrations (PEPC is PEP carboxylase). Four phases are distinguished, as described in Sect. 10.2 (after Osmond & Holtum 1981).

How do CAM plants regulate the activity of the two carboxylating enzymes and decarboxylating enzymes in a coordinated way to avoid futile cycles? Rubisco is inactive at night for the same reason as in C3 plants: this enzyme is part of the Calvin cycle that depends on the light reactions and is inactivated in the dark (Sect. 3.4.2). In addition, the kinetic properties of PEP carboxylase are modulated. In Mesembryanthemum crystallinum (ice plant) and in Crassula argentea (jade plant), PEP carboxylase occurs in two configurations: a ‘‘day-configuration’’ and a ‘‘nightconfiguration’’. The night-configuration is relatively insensitive to malate (the Ki for malate is 0.06—0.9 mM, depending on pH) and has a high affinity for PEP (the Km for PEP is 0.1—0.3 mM). The day-configuration is strongly inhibited by malate (the Ki for malate is 0.004—0.07 mM, again depending on the pH) and has a low affinity for PEP (the Km for PEP is 0.7—1.25 mM). Therefore, when

malate is rapidly exported to the vacuole at night in phase I, the carboxylation of PEP readily takes place, whereas it is suppressed during the day in phase III. The modification of the kinetic properties involves the phosphorylation and de-phosphorylation of PEP carboxylase (Nimmo et al. 2001). Through modification of its kinetic properties, the inhibition of PEP carboxylase prevents a futile cycle of carboxylation and concomitant decarboxylation reactions. Further evidence that such a futile cycle does not occur comes from studies on the labeling with 13C of the first or fourth carbon atom in malate. If a futile cycle were to occur, doubly labeled malate should appear, as fumarase in the mitochondria would randomize the label in the malate molecule. Such randomization only occurs during the acidification phase, indicating rapid exchange of the malate pools of the cytosol and the mitochondria, before malate enters the vacuole.

TABLE 12. Cumulative daily net CO2 and O2 exchange in the dark and in the light periods (12 hours each) and the daily Photosynthetic Quotient for the entire 24 hours period of a shoot of Ananas comosus (pineapple).* Cumulative daily net CO2 and O2 exchange (mmol shoot–1] Dark

Day 1 Day 2

Light

CO2 assimilation

O2 consumption

CO2 assimilation

O2 release

Daily Photosynthetic Quotient

10.6 11.1

6.4 6.3

10.4 10.7

27.1 27.5

0.99 0.98

Source: Cote´ et al. (1989). Photosynthetic quotient is the ratio of the total net amount of O2 evolved to the net CO2 fixed in 24 hours (i.e., the total amount of O2 evolved in the light period minus the total amount of O2 consumed in the dark period) to the total amount of CO2 fixed in the light plus dark period. Measurements were done over two consecutive days. *

CAM Plants

79

FIGURE 47. Gas exchange of Ananas comosus (pineapple) during the dark and light period. O2 consumption during the day is measured using the stable isotope 18O2. Gross O2 release is the sum of net O2 production and

18

O2 consumption. The phases are the same as those shown in Fig. 45 (after Cote´ et al. 1989). Copyright American Society of Plant Biologists.

TABLE 13. Effects of malate and glucose-6-phosphate (G6P) on the kinetic parameters of PEP carboxylase.* Vmax mmol mg–1 (Chl) min–1

Ratio mM

Km

Ratio

0.42 0.45 0.47 0.31 0.34

1.0 1.07 1.12 0.74 0.81

0.13 0.08 0.05 0.21 0.05

1.0 0.61 0.39 1.60 0.39

Control þ 1 mM G6P þ 2 mM G6P þ 5 mM malate þ 5 mM malate and 2 mM G6P

Next to malate, glucose 6-phosphate is also an effector of PEP carboxylase (Table 13). The physiological significance of this effect is that glucose 6-phosphate, which is produced from glucose, during its conversion into PEP thus stimulates the carboxylation of PEP. Temperature has exactly the opposite effect on the kinetic properties of PEP carboxylase from a CAM plant and that from a C4 plant (Fig. 48). These temperature effects help to explain why a low temperature at night enhances acidification.

10.3 Water-Use Efficiency Since CAM plants keep their stomata closed during the day when the vapor pressure difference (wi—wa) between the leaves and the surrounding air is highest, and open at night when wi—wa, is lowest, they have a very high water-use efficiency. As long as they are not severely stressed which leads to

complete closure of their stomata, the WUE of CAM plants tends to be considerably higher than that of both C3 and C4 plants (Table 8 in Chapter 3 on plant water relations). Populations of the leaf-succulent Sedum wrightii (Crassulaceae) differ greatly in their leaf thickness, 13C values (ranging from —13.8 to —22.9%), the proportion of day vs. night CO2 uptake, and growth. The largest plants exhibit the greatest proportion of day vs. night CO2 uptake and hence the lowest WUE, suggesting an inverse relation between the plants’ ability to conserve water and their ability to gain carbon (Kalisz & Teeri 1986).

10.4 Incomplete and Facultative CAM Plants When exposed to severe desiccation, some CAM plants may not even open their stomata during the

80

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 48. The effect of temperature on kinetic properties of PEP carboxylase from leaves of a Crassula argenta (jade plant, a CAM plant) and Zea mays (corn, a C4 plant). (A) Effect on percent inhibition by 5 mM malate. (B) Effect on the inhibition constant (Ki) for malate (Wu & Wedding 1987). Copyright American Society of Plant Biologists.

night (Bastide et al. 1993), but they may continue to show a diurnal fluctuation in malic acid concentration, as first found in Opuntia basilaris (prickly pear). The CO2 they use to produce malic acid at night does not come from the air, but is derived from respiration. It is released again during the day, allowing some Rubisco activity. This metabolism is termed CAM idling. Fluorescence measurements have indicated that the photosystems remain intact during severe drought. CAM idling can be considered as a modification of normal CAM. The plants remain ‘‘ready to move’’ as soon as the environmental conditions improve, but keep their stomata closed during severe drought. Some plants show a diurnal fluctuation in the concentration of malic acid without a net CO2 uptake at night, but with normal rates of CO2 assimilation during the day. These plants are capable of recapturing most of the CO2 derived from dark respiration at night, and to use this as a substrate for PEP carboxylase. This is termed CAM cycling (Patel & Ting 1987). In Peperomia camptotricha, 50% of

the CO2 released in respiration during the night is fixed by PEP carboxylase. At the beginning of the day, some of the CO2 that is fixed at night becomes available for photosynthesis, even when the stomatal conductance is very low. In Talinum calycinum (fame flower), naturally occurring on dry rocks, CAM cycling may reduce water loss by 44%. CAM cycling enhances a plant’s water-use efficiency (Harris & Martin 1991). CAM idling typically occurs in ordinary CAM plants that are exposed to severe water stress and have a very low stomatal conductance throughout the day and night. CAM cycling occurs in plants that have a high stomatal conductance and normal C3 photosynthesis during the day, but refix the CO2 produced in dark respiration at night which ordinary C3 plants lose to the atmosphere. In a limited number of species, CAM only occurs upon exposure to drought stress: facultative CAM plants. For example, in plants of Agave deserti, Clusia uvitana, Mesembryanthemum crystallinum (ice plant), and Portulacaria afra (elephant’s foot), irrigation with saline water or drought can change from a virtually normal C3 photosynthesis to the CAM mode (Fig. 49; Winter et al. 1992). We know of one genus containing C4 species that can shift from a normal C4 mode under irrigated conditions, to a CAM mode under water stress: Portulaca grandiflora (moss rose), Portulaca mundula (hairy purslane), and Portulaca oleracea (common purslane) (Koch & Kennedy 1982, Mazen 1996). The transition from the C3 or C4 to the CAM mode coincides with an enhanced PEP carboxylase activity and of the mRNA encoding this enzyme. Upon removal of NaCl from the root environment of Mesembryanthemum crystallinum (ice plant), the level of mRNA encoding PEP carboxylase declines in 2 to 3 hours by 77%. The amount of the PEP carboxylase enzyme itself declines more slowly: after 2 to 3 days the activity is half its original level (Vernon et al. 1988).

10.5 Distribution and Habitat of CAM Species CAM is undoubtedly an adaptation to drought, since CAM plants close their stomata during most of the day. This is illustrated in a survey of epiphytic bromeliads in Trinidad (Fig. 50). There are two major ecological groupings of CAM plants: succulents from arid and semi-arid regions and epiphytes from tropical and subtropical regions (Ehleringer & Monson 1993). In addition, there are some submerged aquatic plants exhibiting CAM (Sect. 11.5). Although CAM plants are uncommon

CAM Plants

81

FIGURE 49. Induction of CAM in the facultative CAM species Mesembryanthemum crystallinum (ice plant), growing in its natural habitat on rocky coastal cliffs of the Mediterranean Sea. Upon prolonged exposure to drought, the leaf water content (A) declines, and the nocturnal malate concentration (B) increases (yellow symbols and bars, day; turquoise symbols and bars, night). There is a shift from the C3 mode to CAM, coinciding with less carbon-isotope fractionation (C) (Osmond et al. 1982).

in cold environments, this may reflect their evolutionary origin in warm climates rather than a temperature sensitivity of the CAM pathway (Nobel & Hartsock 1990). Roots of some orchids which lack stomata also show CAM. In temperate regions and alpine habitats worldwide, CAM plants, or species showing incomplete or facultative CAM, occur on shallow soils and rock outcrops, niches that are rather dry in moist climates.

FIGURE 50. The relationship between percentage of epiphytic bromeliad species with CAM in a tropical forest and mean annual rainfall across the north-south precipitation gradient in Trinidad (Winter & Smith 1996).

10.6 Carbon-Isotope Composition of CAM Species Like Rubisco from C3 and C4 plants, the enzyme from CAM plants discriminate against 13CO2, but,

82

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

the fractionation at the leaf level is considerably less than that of C3 plants and similar to that of C4 species (Fig. 44). This is expected, as the stomata are closed during malate decarboxylation and fixation of CO2 by Rubisco. Hence, only a small amount of CO2 diffuses back from the leaves to the atmosphere, and Rubisco processes the accumulated 13 CO2 (Sects. 9.3 and 9.4). Upon a shift from C3 to CAM photosynthesis in facultative CAM plants, the stomata are closed during most of the day and open at night, and the carbon-isotope fractionation decreases (Fig. 49). Hence, the carbon-isotope composition of CAM plants can be used as an estimate of the employment of the CAM pathway during past growth.

11. Specialized Mechanisms Associated with Photosynthetic Carbon Acquisition in Aquatic Plants 11.1 Introduction Contrary to the situation in terrestrial plants, in submerged aquatic plants chloroplasts are frequently located in the epidermis. In terrestrial plants, CO2 diffuses from the air through the stomata to the mesophyll cells. In aquatic plants, where diffusion is directly through the outer epidermal cell walls, the rate of this process is often limiting for photosynthesis. A thick boundary layer around the leaves, and slow diffusion of CO2 in water limit the rate of CO2 uptake. How do aquatic plants cope with these problems? To achieve a reasonable rate of photosynthesis and avoid excessive photorespiration, special mechanisms are required to allow sufficient diffusion of CO2 to match the requirement for photosynthesis. Several specialized mechanisms have evolved in different species adapted to specific environmental conditions. Another feature of the habitat of many submerged aquatics is the low irradiance. Leaves of many aquatics have the traits typical of shade leaves (Sect. 3.2).

11.2 The CO2 Supply in Water In fresh water, molecular CO2 is readily available. Between 10 and 208C, the partitioning coefficient (that is, the ratio between the molar concentration of CO2 in air and that in water) is about 1. The equilibrium concentration in water at an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 380 mmol mol—1 is

12 mM (at 258C, but rapidly decreasing with increasing temperature). Under these conditions, leaves of submerged aquatic macrophytes experience about the same CO2 concentration as those in air. The diffusion of dissolved gasses in water, however, occurs approximately 104 times more slowly than in air, leading to rapid depletion of CO2 inside the leaf during CO2 assimilation. In addition, the O2 concentration inside photosynthesizing leaves may increase. Decreasing CO2 concentrations, especially in combination with increasing O2, inexorably lead to conditions that restrict the carboxylating activity and favor the oxygenating activity of Rubisco (Mommer et al. 2005). The transport of CO2 through the unstirred boundary layer is only by diffusion. The thickness of the boundary layer is proportional to the square root of the leaf dimension, measured in the direction of the streaming water, and inversely proportional to the flow of the streaming water (Sect. 2.4 of Chapter 4A on the plant’s energy balance). It ranges from 10 mm in well stirred media, to 500 mm in nonstirred media. The slow diffusion in the boundary layer is often a major factor limiting an aquatic macrophyte’s rate of photosynthesis. CO2 dissolved in water interacts as follows: H2 O þ CO2 , H2 CO3 þ 2 , Hþ þ HCO 3 , 2H þ CO3  HCO 3 , OH þ CO2

(10) (11)

Since the concentration of H2CO3 is very low in comparison with that of CO2, the two are commonly combined and indicated as [CO2]. The interconversion between CO2 and HCO3 is slow, at least in the absence of carbonic anhydrase. The presence of the dissolved inorganic carbon compounds strongly depends on the pH of the water (Fig. 51). In ocean water, as pH increases from 7.4 to 8.3, the contribution of dissolved inorganic carbon species shifts as follows: CO2 as a fraction of the total inorganic carbon pool decreases from 4 to 1%, that of HCO3 from 96 to 89%, and that of CO32 increases from 0.2 to 11%. During darkness, the CO2 concentration in ponds and streams is generally high, exceeding the concentration that is in equilibrium with air, due to respiration of aquatic organisms and the slow exchange of CO2 between water and the air above it. The high CO2 concentration coincides with a relatively low pH. During the day the CO2 concentration may decline rapidly due to photosynthetic activity, and the pH rises accordingly. The rise in pH, especially in the boundary layer, represents a crucial problem for

Specialized Mechanisms Associated with Photosynthetic Carbon Acquisition in Aquatic Plants

FIGURE 51. The contribution of the different inorganic carbon species as dependent on the pH of the water (Osmond et al. 1982).

CO2 availability in water at a neutral pH. While the concentration of all dissolved inorganic carbon (i.e., CO2, HCO3, and CO32) may decline by a few percent only, the CO2 concentration declines much more, since the high pH shifts the equilibrium from CO2 to HCO3 (Fig. 51). This adds to the diffusion problem and further aggravates the limitation by supply of inorganic carbon for assimilation in submerged leaves that only use CO2 and not HCO3.

11.3 The Use of Bicarbonate by Aquatic Macrophytes Many aquatic macrophytes, cyanobacteria, and algae can use HCO3, in addition to CO2, as a carbon source for photosynthesis (Maberly & Madsen 2002). This might!be achieved either by active uptake of HCO3 itself, or by proton extrusion, commonly at the abaxial side of the leaf, thus lowering the pH in the extracellular space and shifting the equilibrium towards CO2 (Elzenga & Prins 1988). In some species [e.g., Elodea canadensis (waterweed)] the conversion of HCO3 into CO2 is also catalyzed by an extracellular carbonic anhydrase. In Ranunculus penicillatus spp. pseudofluitans (a stream water crowfoot), the enzyme is closely associated with the epidermal cell wall (Newman & Raven 1993). Active uptake of HCO3 also requires proton extrusion, to provide a driving force.

83

Aquatic plants that use HCO3 in addition to CO2 have a mechanism to concentrate CO2 in their chloroplasts. Although this CO2-concentrating mechanism differs from that of C4 plants (Sect. 9.2), its effect is similar: it suppresses the oxygenating activity of Rubisco and lowers the CO2-compensation point. In Elodea canadensis (common waterweed), Potamogeton lucens (ribbonweed), and other aquatic macrophytes, the capacity to acidify the lower side of the leaves, and thus to use HCO3, is expressed most at high irradiance and low dissolved inorganic carbon concentration in the water (Elzenga & Prins 1989). The capacity of the carbonconcentrating mechanism also depends on the N supply: the higher the supply, the greater the capacity of the photosynthetic apparatus as well as that of the carbon- concentrating mechanism (Madsen & Baattrup- Pedersen 1995). Acidification of the lower side of the leaves is accompanied by an increase in extracellular pH at the upper side of the leaves. The leaves become ‘‘polar’’ when the carbon supply from the water is less than the CO2-assimilating capacity (Prins & Elzenga 1989). There are also anatomical differences between the upper and lower side of ‘‘polar’’ leaves: the lower epidermal cells are often transfer cells, characterized by ingrowths of cellwall material which increases the surface area of the plasma membrane. They contain numerous mitochondria and chloroplasts. At the upper side of the leaves, the pH increase leads to precipitation of calcium carbonates. This process plays a major role in the geological sedimentation of calcium carbonate (Sect. 11.7). Due to the use of HCO3, the internal CO2 concentration may become much higher than it is in terrestrial C3 plants. This implies that they do not need a Rubisco enzyme with a high affinity for CO2. Interestingly, just like C4 plants (Sect. 9.4), they have a Rubisco with a relatively high Km for CO2. The values are approximately twice as high as those of terrestrial C3 plants (Yeoh et al. 1981). This high Km is associated with a high maximum catalytic activity (kcat) of Rubisco, as in the HCO3-using green alga, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, and in C4 species. For the Rubisco of the cyanobacterium Synechococcus that also has a carbon-concentrating mechanism, even higher Km(CO2) and kcat values are reported. (Table 9). Hydrilla verticillata (waterthyme) has an inducible CO2-concentrating mechanism, even when the pH of the medium is so low that there is no HCO3 available. This monocotyledonous species predates modern terrestrial C4 monocots and may represent an ancient form of C4 photosynthesis (Magnin et al. 1997). The species has an inducible single-cell

84

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport the sediment is a major source of CO2, although only after diffusion into the water column (Prins & de Guia 1986). Stylites andicola is a vascular land plant without stomata that derives nearly all its carbon through its roots (Keeley et al. 1984). Submerged macrophytes of the isoetid life form (quillworts) receive a very large portion of their carbon for photosynthesis directly from the sediment via their roots: 60 to 100% (Table 14). This capability is considered an adaptation to growth in low-pH, carbon-poor (‘‘soft-water’’) lakes, where these plants are common. None of the investigated species from ‘‘hard-water’’ lakes or marine systems show significant CO2 uptake via their roots (Farmer 1996). In the quillworts, CO2 diffuses from the sediment, via the lacunal air system to the submerged leaves. These leaves are thick with thick cuticles, have no functional stomata when growing submerged, but large air spaces inside, so that gas exchange with the atmosphere is hampered, but internal exchange is facilitated. Emergent leaves have very few stomata at the leaf base, and normal densities at the leaf tips (Fig. 52). The chloroplasts in isoetid leaves are concentrated around the lacunal system. The air spaces in the leaves are connected with those in stems and roots, thus facilitating the transport of CO2 from the sediment to the leaves where it is assimilated. At night, only part of the CO2 coming up from the sediment via the roots through the lacunal system is fixed (Sect. 11.5), the rest being lost to the atmosphere.

C4-type photosynthetic cycle (Table 7; Sect. 9.5). This mechanism is induced at high temperatures and when the plants are growing in water that contains low concentrations of dissolved inorganic carbon (Reiskind et al. 1997). There appears to be a clear ecological benefit to this CO2-concentrating mechanism when the canopy becomes dense, the dissolved O2 concentration is high, and the CO2 supply is low. Under these conditions photorespiration decreases photosynthesis of a C3-type plant by at least 35%, whereas in Hydrilla verticillata this decrease is only about 4% (Bowes & Salvucci 1989). A carbon-concentrating mechanism in the form of a single-cell C4-like pathway has also been identified in a marine diatom of common occurrence in the oceans (Reinfelder et al. 2000), indicating that this pathway is more common than thought previously (Sage 2004).

11.4 The Use of CO2 from the Sediment Macrophytes like water lilies that have an internal ventilation system assimilate CO2 arriving from the roots due to pressurized flow (Sect. 4.1.4 of Chapter 2B on plant respiration). The use of CO2 from the sediment is only minor for most emergent wetland species such as Scirpus lacustris (bull rush) and Cyperus papyrus (papyrus), where it approximates 0.25% of the total CO2 uptake in photosynthesis (Farmer 1996). For Stratiotes aloides (water soldier),

TABLE 14. Assimilation of 14CO2 derived from the air or from the rhizosphere by leaves and roots of Littorella uniflora (quillwort).* 14

CO2 assimilation[mg C g–1 (leaf or root DM) h–1] Leaves

Source: CO2 concentration around the roots (mM) 0.1 0.5 2.5

Roots

Air

Rhizosphere

Air

Rhizosphere

300 (10) 350 (5) 370 (4)

340 (50) 1330 (120) 8340 (1430)

10 (0.3) 10 (0.3) 10 (0.3)

60 (70) 170 (140) 570 (300)

Source: Nielsen et al. (1991). * 14 CO2 was added to the air around the leaves or to the water around the roots (rhizosphere). Measurements were made in the light and in the dark; values of the dark measurements are given in brackets.

Specialized Mechanisms Associated with Photosynthetic Carbon Acquisition in Aquatic Plants

FIGURE 52. The stomatal density along mature leaves of Littorella uniflora (shoreweed) from the base to the tip (Nielsen et al. 1991).

11.5 Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM) in Aquatic Plants Though aquatic plants by no means face the same problems connected with water shortage as desert plants, some of them [Isoetes (quillwort) species] have a similar photosynthetic metabolism: Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM) (Keeley 1990). They accumulate malic acid during the night and have rates of CO2 fixation during the night that are similar in magnitude as those during the day, when the CO2 supply from the water is very low (Fig. 53). The aerial leaves of Isoetes howellii, in contrast to the submerged leaves of the same plants, do not show a diurnal fluctuation in the concentration of malic acid. Why would an aquatic plant have a similar photosynthetic pathway as is common in species from arid habitats? CAM in Isoetes is considered an adaptation to very low levels of CO2 in the water, especially during the day (Fig. 53), and allows the plants to assimilate additional CO2 at night. This nocturnal CO2 fixation gives them access to a carbon source that is unavailable to other species. Though some of the carbon fixed in malic acid comes from the surrounding water, where it accumulates due to the respiration of aquatic organisms, some is also derived from the plant’s own respiration during the night. A CAM pathway has also been discovered in other genera of aquatic vascular plants (Maberly & Madsen 2002).

11.6 Carbon-Isotope Composition of Aquatic Plants There is a wide variation in carbon-isotope composition among different aquatic plants, as well as a

85

large difference between aquatic and terrestrial plants (Fig. 54). A low carbon-isotope fractionation might reflect the employment of the C4 pathway of photosynthesis, although the typical Kranz anatomy is usually lacking. Only about a dozen aquatic C4 species have been identified, and very few have submersed leaves with a well developed Kranz anatomy (Bowes et al. 2002). A low carbon-isotope fractionation in aquatic plants might also reflect the CAM pathway of photosynthesis. Isoetids often have rather negative 13C values, due to the isotope composition of the substrate (Table 15). Four factors account for the observed variation in isotope composition of freshwater aquatics (Keeley & Sandquist 1992): 1. The isotope composition of the carbon source varies substantially. It ranges from a 13C value of þ1%, for HCO3 derived from limestone, to —30%, for CO2 derived from respiration. The average 13C value of CO2 in air is —8%. The isotope composition also changes with the water depth (Table 16). 2. The species of inorganic carbon fixed by the plant; HCO3 has a 13C that is 7—11% less negative than that of CO2. 3. Resistance for diffusion across the unstirred boundary layer is generally important (except in rapidly streaming water), thus decreasing carbon-isotope fractionation (Box 2). 4. The photosynthetic pathway (C3, C4, and CAM) that represent different degrees of fractionation. The isotope composition of plant carbon is dominated by that of the source (see 1 and 2 above), because diffusional barriers are strong (see 3). This accounts for most of the variation as described in Fig. 54, rather than biochemical differences in the photosynthetic pathway (Osmond et al. 1982).

11.7 The Role of Aquatic Macrophytes in Carbonate Sedimentation The capacity of photosynthetic organisms [e.g., Chara (musk-grass), Potamogeton (pondweed), and Elodea (waterweed)] to acidify part of the apoplast and use HCO3 (Sect. 11.3) plays a major role in the formation of calcium precipitates in fresh water, on both an annual and a geological time scale. Many calcium-rich lake sediments contain plant-induced carbonates, according to: Ca2þ þ 2HCO 3 ! CO2 þ CaCO3

(12)

86

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

FIGURE 53. CAM photosynthesis in submerged leaves of Isoetes howellii (quillwort) in a pool. (A) Malic acid levels, (B) rates of CO2 uptake, and (C) irradiance at the water surface, water temperatures, and concentrations of CO2 and O2; the numbers near the symbols

give the pH values. Open and filled symbols refer to the light and dark period, respectively (after Keeley & Busch 1984). Copyright American Society of Plant Biologists.

This reaction occurs in the alkaline compartment that is provided at the upper side of the polar leaves of aquatic macrophyytes (Sect. 11.3). Similar amounts of carbon are assimilated in photosynthesis and precipitated as carbonate. If only part of the CO2 released in this process is assimilated by the

macrophyte, as may occur under nutrient-deficient conditions, CO2 is released to the atmosphere. On the other hand, if the alkalinity of the compartment is relatively low, there is a net transfer of atmospheric CO2 to the water (McConnaughey et al. 1994).

Effects of the Rising CO2 Concentration in the Atmosphere

87

FIGURE 54. Variation in the carbon-isotope composition (13C) of freshwater and marine aquatic species. The observed variation is due to variation in 13C values of the substrate and in the extent of diffusional limitation (Osmond et al. 1982).

TABLE 15. Carbon-isotope composition (d13C in ø) of submerged and emergent Isoetes howellii plants.* Pondwater carbonate Submerged Leaves Roots Emergent Leaves Roots

–15.5 to –18.6 –27.9 to –29.4 –25.8 to –28.8 –29.4 to –30.1 –29.0 to –29.8

Source: Keeley & Busch (1984). Values are given for both leaves and roots and also for the pondwater carbonate.

*

TABLE 16. Changes in the dissolved carbon isotope composition with depth as reflected in the composition of the organic matter at that depth. Water depth (m) 1 2 5 7 9 11

an acidifying effect and dissolve part of the calcium carbonate precipitates in sediments, and thus contribute to a further rise in atmospheric [CO2] (Sect. 12).

d13C (ø) –20.80 –20.75 –23.40 –24.72 –26.79 –29.91

Source: Osmond et al. (1982).

Equation (12) shows how aquatic photosynthetic organisms play a major role in the global carbon cycle, even on a geological time scale. On the other hand, rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have

12. Effects of the Rising CO2 Concentration in the Atmosphere Vast amounts of carbon are present in carbonates in the Earth’s crust. Also stored in the Earth’s crust is another major carbon pool: the organic carbon derived form past photosynthesis; a key factor in the development of the present low CO2/high O2 atmosphere. Some CO2 enters the atmosphere when carbonates are used for making cement, but apart from that, carbonates are only biologically important on a geological time scale. Far more important for the carbon balance of the atmosphere is the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and changes in land-use that represent a CO2 input into the atmosphere of 8.1015 g of carbon per year (1015 g equals 1 petagram, Pg). Compared with the total amount of carbon present in the atmosphere, 720 Pg, such inputs are substantial and inevitably affect the CO2 concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere (Falkowski et al. 2000). CO2 is, by far, the largest contributor to the anthropogenically enhanced greenhouse effect (Houghton 2007). Since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the late 18th century, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased from about 290 mmol mol—1 to the current level of over 385 mmol mol—1 (Tans 2007). The concentration continues to rise by about

88

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport FIGURE 55. The rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, as measured at Mauna Loa (Hawaii), accelerated from about 0.7 mmol mol–1 yr–1 in the early years to about 2.0 mmol mol–1 yr–1 today. The blue line refers to data collected during 1958–1974 at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography; the red line refers to data collected since 1974 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce (Tans 2007). Reproduced with the author’s permission.

FIGURE 56. The global carbon cycle and global carbon reservoirs. Units are Pg C or Pg C yr–1; 1 petagram ¼ 1015 g ¼ 109 metric tones (updated following Houghton

2007). Courtesy R.A. Houghton, The Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, Massachusetts, USA.

Effects of the Rising CO2 Concentration in the Atmosphere 1.5 mmol mol—1 per year (Fig. 55). Measurements of CO2 concentrations in ice cores indicate a pre-industrial value of about 280 mmol mol—1 during the past 10000 years, and about 205 mmol mol—1 some 20000 years ago during the last ice age. Considerable quantities of CO2 have also been released into the atmosphere as a result of deforestation, ploughing of prairies, drainage of peats, and other land-use changes that cause oxidation of organic compounds in soil and, to a lesser extent, biomass. Combustion of fossil fuel adds far greater amounts of carbon per year (Fig. 56). Combined anthropogenic fluxes to the atmosphere amount to 8 Pg of carbon per year (Falkowski et al. 2000). Yet, the increase in the atmosphere is only 4.2 Pg of carbon per year (2000—2005). About 2.2 Pg of the ‘‘missing’’ carbon is taken up in the oceans and a similar amount (2.3 Pg) is fixed by terrestrial ecosystems (Grace 2004, Houghton 2007). Analysis of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and its isotopic composition shows that north-temperate and boreal forests are the most likely sinks for the missing carbon. There is also strong uptake by tropical forests, but this is offset by CO2 release from deforestation in the tropics. This increased terrestrial uptake of CO2 has many causes, including stimulation of photosynthesis by elevated [CO2] (about half of the increased terrestrial uptake) or by N deposition in N-limited ecosystems and regrowth of northern and mid-latitude forests (Houghton 2007). Since the rate of net CO2 assimilation is not CO2saturated in C3 plants at 385 mmol mol—1 CO2, the rise in CO2 concentration is more likely to enhance photosynthesis in C3 than in C4 plants, where the rate of CO2 assimilation is virtually saturated at a CO2 concentration of 385 mmol mol—1 (Bunce 2004). The consequences of an enhanced rate of photosynthesis for plant growth are discussed in Sect. 5.8 of Chapter 7 on growth and allocation.

12.1 Acclimation of Photosynthesis to Elevated CO2 Concentrations Upon long-term exposure to 700 mmol mol—1, about twice the present atmospheric CO2 concentration, there may be a reduction of the photosynthetic capacity, associated with reduced levels of Rubisco and organic N per unit leaf area. This down-regulation of photosynthesis increases with increasing duration of the exposure to elevated [CO2] and is most pronounced in plants grown at low N supplies. By contrast, water-stressed plants tend to increase net photosynthesis in

89

response to elevated [CO2] (Wullschleger et al. 2002). Herbaceous plants consistently reduce stomatal conductance in response to elevated [CO2], so that Ci does not increase as much as would be expected from the increase in Ca, but their intrinsic WUE tends to be increased (Long et al. 2004). Tree photosynthesis continues to be enhanced by elevated [CO2], except when seedlings are grown in small pots, inducing nutrient limitation (Norby et al. 1999). The decrease in stomatal conductance of C3 plants often indirectly stimulates photosynthesis in dry environments by reducing the rate of soil drying and therefore the water limitation of photosynthesis (Hungate et al. 2002). C3 and C4 plants, however, benefit equally from increased water-use efficiency and water availability, reducing the relative advantage that C3 plants gain from their greater CO2 responsiveness of photosynthesis (Wand et al. 1999, Sage & Kubien 2003). Why would acclimation of photosynthesis to elevated [CO2] be more pronounced when N supply is poor? This could be a direct effect of N or an indirect effect by limiting the development of sinks for photoassimilates. This question can be tested by growing Lolium perenne (perennial ryegrass) in the field under elevated and current atmospheric CO2concentrations at both low and high N supply. Cutting of this herbage crop at regular intervals removes a major part of the canopy, decreasing the ratio of photosynthetic area to sinks for photoassimilates. Just before the cut, when the canopy is relatively large, growth at elevated [CO2] and low N supply decreases in carboxylation capacity and the amount of Rubisco protein. At a high N supply there are no significant decreases in carboxylation capacity or proteins. Elevated [CO2] results in a marked increase in leaf carbohydrate concentration at low N supply, but not at high N supply. This acclimation at low N supply is absent after a harvest, when the canopy size is small. Acclimation under low N is therefore most likely caused by limitation of sink development rather than being a direct effect of N supply on photosynthesis (Rogers et al. 1998). How do herbaceous plants sense that they are growing at an elevated CO2 concentration and then down-regulate their photosynthetic capacity? Acclimation is not due to sensing the CO2 concentration itself, but sensing the concentration of sugars in the leaf cells, more precisely the soluble hexose sugars (Sect. 4.2), mediated by a specific hexokinase (Sect. 4.3). In transgenic plants in which the level of hexokinase is greatly reduced, down-regulation of photosynthesis upon prolonged exposure to high [CO2] is considerably

90

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

TABLE 17. Light-saturated rate of photosynthesis (Amax, measured at the CO2 concentrations at which the plants were grown), in vitro Rubisco activity, chlorophyll concentration and the concentration of hexose sugars in the fifth leaf of Solanum lycopersicum (tomato) at various stages of development.*

Leaf expansion (% of full expansion) 2 60 95 100

Amax (mmol m–2 s–1)

Rubisco activity (mmol m–2 s–1)mg m–2

Exposure time (days)

Control

High

Control

High

Control

High

Control

High

Control

High

0 11 22 31

16.3 18.9 15.0 9.3

21.3 28.7 25.1 18.0

22.6 20.5 15.7 9.5

– 25.1 12.7 4.9

270 480 540 450

– 520 500 310

750 1000 1100 1100

– 1200 1250 2100

500 1400 1800 1800

– 1400 2100 4200

Chlorophyll (mg m–2)

Glucose (mg m–2)

Fructose

Source: Van Oosten & Besford (1995), Van Oosten et al. (1995). Plants were grown at different atmospheric CO2 concentrations: control, 350 mmol CO2 mol–1; high, 700 mmol CO2 mol–1.

*

less. Via a signal-transduction pathway, which also involves phytohormones, the sugar-sensing mechanism regulates the transcription of nuclear encoded photosynthesis-associated genes (Rolland et al. 2006). Among the first photosynthetic proteins that are affected are the small subunit of Rubisco and Rubisco activase. Upon longer exposure, the level of thylakoid proteins and chlorophyll is also reduced (Table 17). The down-regulation of photosynthesis at elevated CO2 has led to the discovery of sugar-sensing in plants, but it has recently become clear that the signaling pathway is intricately involved in a network regulating acclimation to other environmental factors, including light and nutrient availability as well as biotic and abiotic stress (Rolland et al. 2002). Down-regulation of photosynthesis in response to long-term exposure to elevated CO2 has important global implications. The capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to sequester carbon appears to be saturating, leaving a larger proportion of human carbon emissions in the atmosphere, and accelerating the rate of global warming (Canadell et al. 2007).

12.2 Effects of Elevated CO2 on Transpiration—Differential Effects on C3, C4, and CAM Plants Different types of plants respond to varying degrees to elevated CO2. For example, C4 plants, whose rate of photosynthesis is virtually saturated at 385 mmol mol—1, generally respond less to elevated CO2 than do C3 plants.

Also Opuntia ficus-indica (prickly pear), a CAM species cultivated worldwide for its fruits and cladodes, responds to the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The rate of CO2 assimilation is initially enhanced, both at night and during the day, but this disappears upon prolonged exposure to elevated CO2 (Cui & Nobel 1994). CAM species show, on average, a 35% increase in net daily CO2 uptake which reflects increases in both Rubiscomediated CO2 uptake during the day and PEP carboxylase-mediated CO2 uptake at night (Drennan & Nobel 2000).

13. Summary: What Can We Gain from Basic Principles and Rates of Single-Leaf Photosynthesis? Numerous examples have been given on how differences in photosynthetic traits enhance a genotype’s survival in a specific environment. These include specific biochemical pathways (C3, C4, and CAM) as well as more intricate differences between sun and shade plants, aquatic and terrestrial plants, and plants differing in their photosynthetic N-use efficiency and water-use efficiency. Information on photosynthetic traits is also highly relevant when trying to understand effects of global environmental changes in temperature and atmospheric CO2concentrations. For a physiological ecologist, a full appreciation of the process of leaf photosynthesis is quintessential. What we cannot derive from measurements on photosynthesis of single leaves is what the rate of photosynthesis of an entire canopy will be. To

References work out these rates, we need to take the approach discussed in Chapter 5, dealing with scaling-up principles. It is also quite clear that short-term measurements on the effect of atmospheric CO2concentrations are not going to tell us what will happen in the long term. Acclimation of the photosynthetic apparatus (‘‘down-regulation’’) may occur, reducing the initial stimulatory effect. Most importantly, we cannot derive plant growth rates or crop yields from rates of photosynthesis of a single leaf. Growth rates are not simply determined by rates of single-leaf photosynthesis per unit leaf area, but also by the total leaf area per plant and by the fraction of daily produced photosynthates required for plant respiration, issues that are dealt with in later chapters.

References Adams III, W.W., Demmig-Adams, B., Logan, B.A., Barker, D.H., & Osmond, C.B. 1999. Rapid changes in xanthophyll cycle-dependent energy dissipation and photosystem II efficiency in two vines, Stephania japonica and Smilax australis, growing in the understory of an open Eucalyptus forest. Plant Cell Environ. 22: 125—136. Allen, M.T. & Pearcy, R.W. 2000. Stomatal behavior and photosynthetic performance under dynamic light regimes in a seasonally dry tropical rain forest. Oecologia 122: 470—478. Atkin, O.K., Scheurwater, I., & Pons, T.L. 2006. High thermal acclimation potential of both photosynthesis and respiration in two lowland Plantago species in contrast to an alpine congeneric. Global Change Biol. 12: 500—515. Bailey, S., Walters, R.G., Jansson, S., & Horton, P. 2001. Acclimation of Arabidopsis thaliana to the light environment: the existence of separate low light and high light responses. Planta 213: 794—801. Bastide, B., Sipes, D., Hann, J., & Ting, I.P. 1993. Effect of severe water stress on aspects of crassulacean acid metabolism in Xerosicyos. Plant Physiol. 103: 1089—1096. Beerling, D.J. & Osborne, C.P. 2006. The origin of the savanna biome. Global Change Biol. 12: 2023—2031. Bernacchi, C.J., Pimentel, C., & Long, S.P. 2003. In vivo temperature response functions of parameters required to model RuBP-limited photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 26: 1419—1430. Bernacchi, C.J., Singsaas, E.L., Pimentel, C., Portis Jr., A.R., & Long, S.P. 2001. Improved temperature response functions for models of Rubisco-limited photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 24: 253—259. Bernacchi, C.J., Portis, A.R., Nakano, H., Von Caemmerer, S., & Long, S.P. 2002. Temperature response of mesophyll conductance. Implications for the determination of Rubisco enzyme kinetics and for limitations to photosynthesis in vivo. Plant Physiol. 130: 1992—1998.

91 Berry, J.A. & Bjorkman, O. 1980. Photosynthetic response ¨ and adaptation to temperature in higher plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 31: 491—543. Berry, J.A. & Raison, J.K. 1981. Responses of macrophytes to temperature. In: Encyclopedia of plant physiology, Vol 12A, O.L. Lange, P.S. Nobel, C.B. Osmond, & H. Ziegler (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 277—338. Bjorkman, O. 1981. Responses to different quantum flux ¨ densities. In: Encyclopedia of plant physiology, N.S., Vol. 12A, O.L. Lange, P.S. Nobel, C.B. Osmond, & H. Ziegler (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 57—107. ¨ Bolha`r-Nordenkampf, H.R. & Oquist, G. 1993. Chlorophyll fluorescence as a tool in photosynthesis research. In: Photosynthesis and production in a changing environment, D.O. Hall, J.M.O. Scurlock, H.R. Bolha`r-Nordenkampf, R.C. Leegood, & S.P. Long (eds.). Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 193—206. Boonman, A., Prinsen, E., Gilmer, F., Schurr, U., Peeters, A.J.M., Voesenek, L.A.C.J., & Pons, T.L. 2007. Cytokinin import rate as a signal for photosynthetic acclimation to canopy light gradients. Plant Physiol. 143: 1841—1852. Bowes, G. & Salvucci, M.E. 1989. Plasticity in the photosynthetic carbon metabolism of submersed aquatic macrophytes. Aquat. Bot. 34: 233—286. Bowes, G., Rao, S.K., Estavillo, G.M., & Reiskind, J.B. 2002. C4 mechanisms in aquatic angiosperms: comparisons with terrestrial C4 systems. Funct. Plant Biol. 29: 379—392. Brown, R. & Bouton, J.H. 1993. Physiology and genetics of interspecific hybrids between photosynthetic types. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 44: 435—456. Brown, R.H. & Hattersley, P.W. 1989. Leaf anatomy of C3—C4 species as related to evolution of C4 photosynthesis. Plant Physiol. 91: 1543—1550. Brugnoli, E. & Bjorkman, O. 1992. Chloroplast movements ¨ in leaves: influence on chlorophyll fluorescence and measurements of light-induced absorbance changes related to DpH and zeaxanthin formation. Photosynth. Res. 32: 23—35. Buchmann, N., Guehl, J.M., Barigah, T.S., & Ehleringer, J.R. 1997. Interseasonal comparison of CO2 concentrations, isotopic composition, and carbon dynamics in an amazonian rain forest (French Guiana). Oecologia 110: 120—131. Bunce, J.A. 2004. Carbon dioxide effects on stomatal responses to the environment and water use by crops under field conditions. Oecologia 140: 1—10. Canadell, J.G., Pataki, D.E., Gifford, R., Houghton, R.A., Luo, Y., Raupach, M.R., Smith, P., & Steffen. W. 2007. Saturation of the terrestrial carbon sink. In: Terrestrial ecosystems in a changing world, J.G. Canadell, D. Pataki, & L. Pitelka (eds.). Springer, Berlin, pp. 59—78. Cavagnaro, J.B. 1988. Distribution of C3 and C4 grasses at different altitudes in a temperate arid region of Argentina. Oecologia 76: 273—277. Cen, Y.-P. & Sage, R.F. 2005. The regulation of ribulose1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase activity in response to variation in temperature and atmospheric CO2 partial pressure in sweet potato. Plant Physiol. 139: 1—12. Cerling, T.E., Harris, J.H., MacFadden, B.J., Leakey, M.G., Quade, J., Eisenmann, V., & Ehleringer, J.R. 1997. Global

92

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

vegetation change through the Miocene/Pliocene boundary. Nature 389: 153—158. Chazdon, R.L. & Pearcy, R.W. 1986. Photosynthetic responses to light variation in rainforest species. I. Induction under constant and fluctuating light conditions. Oecologia 69: 517—523. Chazdon, R.L. & Pearcy, R.W. 1991. The importance of sunflecks for forest understory plants.BioSciences 41: 760—766. Chow, W.S. 2003. Photosynthesis: from natural towards artificial. J. Biol. Phys. 29: 447—459. Chow, W.S., Hope, A.B., & Anderson, J.M. 1989. Oxygen per flash from leaf disks quantifies photosystem II. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 973: 105—108. Christie, E.K. & Detling, J.K. 1982. Analysis of interference between C3 and C4 grasses in relation to temperature and soil nitrogen supply. Ecology 63: 1277—1284. Christmann, A., Hoffmann, T., Teplova, I., Grill, E., & Mu¨ller, A. 2005. Generation of active pools of abscisic acid revealed by in vivo imaging of water-stressed Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 137: 209—219. Cote´, F.X., Andre´, M., Folliot, M., Massimino, D., & Daguenet, A. 1989. CO2 and O2 exchanges in the CAM plant Ananas comosus (L.) Merr. determination or total and malate-decarboxylation-dependent CO2-assimilation rates; study of light O2-uptake. Plant Physiol. 89: 61—68. Coupe, S.A., Palmer, B.G., Lake, J.A., Overy, S.A., Oxborough, K., Woodward, F.I., Gray, J.E., & Quick, W.P. 2006 Systemic signalling of environmental cues in Arabidopsis leaves. J. Exp. Bot. 57: 329—341. Cui, M. & Nobel, P.S. 1994. Gas exchange and growth responses to elevated CO2 and light levels in the CAM species Opuntia ficus-indica. Plant Cell Environ. 17: 935—944. DeLucia, E.H., Nelson, K., Vogelmann, T.C., & Smith, W.K. 1996. Contribution of intercellular reflectance to photosynthesis in shade leaves. Plant Cell Environ. 19: 159—170. Demmig-Adams, B. & Adams III, W.W. 1996. The role of xanthophyll cycle carotenoids in the protection of photosynthesis. Trends Plant Sci. 1: 21—26. Demmig-Adams, B. & Adams III, W.W. 2006. Photoprotection in an ecological context: the remarkable complexity of thermal energy dissipation. New Phytol. 172: 11—21. DeRidder, B.P. & Salvucci, M.E. 2007. Modulation of Rubisco activase gene expression during heat stress in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) involves post-transcriptional mechanisms. Plant Sci. 172: 246—254. Downton, W.J.S., Loveys, B.R., & Grant, W.J.R. 1988. Stomatal closure fully accounts for the inhibition of photosynthesis by abscisic acid. New Phytol. 108: 263—266. Drennan, P.M. & Nobel, P.S. 2000. Responses of CAM species to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Plant Cell Environ. 23: 767—781. Eckstein, J., Beyschlag, W., Mott, K.A., & Ryell, R.J. 1996. Changes in photon flux can induce stomatal patchiness. Plant Cell. Environ. 19: 1066—1074. Ehleringer, J., & Bjo¨ rkman, O. 1977. Quantum yields for CO2 uptake in C3 and C4 plants. Dependence on

temperature, CO2, and O2concentration. Plant Physiol. 59: 86—90. Ehleringer, J.R. & Monson, R. K. 1993. Evolutionary and ecological aspects of photosynthetic pathway variation. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 24: 411—439. Ehleringer, J., Bjorkman, O., & Mooney, H.A. 1976. Leaf ¨ pubescence: effects on absorptance and photosynthesis in a desert shrub. Science 192: 376—377. Ehleringer, J.R., Schulze, E.-D., Ziegler, H., Lange, O.L., Farquhar, G.D., & Cowan, I.R. 1985. Xylem-tapping mistletoes: water or nutrient parasites? Science 227: 1479—1481. Eller, B.M. & Ferrari, S. 1997. Water use efficiency of two succulents with contrasting CO2 fixation pathways. Plant Cell Environ. 20: 93—100. Ellis, R.P. 1977. Distribution of the Kranz syndrome in the Southern African Eragrostoideae and the Panicoideae according to bundle sheath anatomy and cytology. Agroplantae 9: 73—110. Ellis, R.P., Vogel, J.C., & Fuls, A. 1980. Photosynthetic pathways and the geographical distribution of grasses in south west Africa/Namibia. S. Afr. J. Sci. 76: 307—314. Elzenga, J.T.M. & Prins, H.B.A. 1988. Adaptation of Elodea and Potamogeton to different inorganic carbon levels and the mechanism for photosynthetic bicarbonate utilisation. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 15: 727—735. Elzenga, J.T.M. & Prins, H.B.A. 1989. Light-induced polar pH changes in leaves of Elodea canadensis. I. Effects of carbon concentration and light intensity. Plant Physiol. 91: 62—67. Evans, J.R. 1988. Acclimation by the thylakoid membranes to growth irradiance and the partitioning of nitrogen between soluble and thylakoid proteins. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 15: 93—106. Evans, J.R. 1989. Photosynthesis and nitrogen relationships in leaves of C3 plants. Oecologia 78: 9—19. Evans, J.R. & Loreto, F. 2000. Acquisition and diffusion of CO2 in higher plant leaves. In: Photosynthesis: physiology and metabolism, R.C. Leegood, T.D. Sharkey, & S. Von Caemmerer (eds.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 321—351. Evans, J.R. & Seemann, J.R. 1989. The allocation of protein nitrogen in the photosynthetic apparatus: costs, consequences, and control. In: Photosynthesis, W.R. Briggs (ed.). Alan Liss, New York, pp. 183—205. Evans, J.R. & Vogelmann, T.C. 2003. Profiles of 14C fixation through spinach leaves in relation to light absorption and photosynthetic capacity. Plant Cell Environ. 26: 547—560. Evans, J.R., Sharkey, T.D., Berry, J.A., & Farquhar, G.D. 1986. Carbon isotope discrimination measured with gas exchange to investigate CO2 diffusion in leaves of higher plants. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 13: 281—292. Falkowski, P., Scholes, R.J., Boyle, E., Canadell, J., Canfield, D., Elser, J., Gruber, N., Hibbard, K., H¨ogberg, P., Linder, S., Mackenzie, F.T., Moore III, B., Pedersen, T., Rosenthal, Y., Seitzinger, S., Smetacek, V., & Steffen, W. 2000. The global carbon cycle: a test of our knowledge of Earth as a system. Science 290: 291—296.

References Farmer, A.M. 1996. Carbon uptake by roots. In: Plant roots: the hidden half, Y. Waisel, A. Eshel, & U. Kafkaki (eds.). Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp. 679—687. Farquhar, G.D. & Richards, R.A. 1984. Isotopic composition of plant carbon correlates with water-use efficiency of wheat genotypes. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 11: 539—552. Farquhar, G.D., Von Caemmerer, S., & Berry, J.A. 1980. A biochemical model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation in leaves of C3 species. Planta 149: 78—90. Farquhar, G.D., O’Leary, M.H., & Berry, J.A. 1982. On the relationship between carbon isotope discrimination and the intercellular carbon dioxide concentration in leaves. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 9: 131—137. Field, C.B., Ball, T., & Berry, J.A. 1989. Photosynthesis: principles and field techniques. In: Plant physiological ecology; field methods and instrumentation, R.W. Pearcy, J.R. Ehleringer, H.A. Mooney, & P.W. Rundel (eds.). Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 209—253. Feild, T.S., Lee, D.W., & Holbrook, N.M. 2001. Why leaves turn red in autumn. The role of anthocyanins in senescing leaves of red-osier dogwood. Plant Physiol. 127: 566—574. Flexas, J. & Medrano, H. 2002. Drought-inhibition of photosynthesis in C3 plants: stomatal and non-stomatal limitations revisited. Ann. Bot. 89: 183—189. Flexas, J., Bota, J., Loreto, F., Cornic, G., & Sharkey T.D. 2004. Diffusive and metabolic limitations to photosynthesis under drought and salinity in C3 plants. Plant Biol.6: 269—279. ´ M., Hanson, D.T., Bota J., Otto, B., Flexas, J., Ribas-Carbo, Cifre, J., McDowell, N., Medrano, H., & Kaldenhoff, R. 2006a. Tobacco aquaporin NtAQP1 is involved in mesophyll conductance to CO2 in vivo. Plant J. 48: 427—439. Flexas, J., Bota, J., Galme´s, J., Medrano, H., & RibasCarb´o, M. 2006b. Keeping a positive carbon balance under adverse conditions: responses of photosynthesis and respiration to water stress. Physiol. Plant. 127: 343—352. Flexas, J., Diaz-Espejo, Galme´s, J., Kaldenhoff, R., ´ M. 2007a. Rapid variations Medrano, H. & Ribas-Carbo, of mesophyll conductance in response to changes in CO2 concentration around leaves. Plant Cell Environ. 30: 1284—1298. Flexas, J., Diaz-Espejo, A., Berry, J.A., Cifre, J., Galme´s, J., Kaidenhoff, R., Medrano, H. & Ribas-Carbo, M. 2007b. Analysis of leakage in IRGA’s leaf chambers of open gas exchange systems: quantification and its effects in photosynthesis parameterization. J. Exp. Bot. 58: 1533—1543. ´ M., Diaz-Espejo, A., Galme´s, J., & Flexas, J., Ribas-Carbo, Medrano, H. 2008. Mesophyll conductance to CO2: current knowledge and future prospects. Plant Cell Environ. 31: 602—621. Flu¨gge, U.I., Stitt, M., & Heldt, H.W. 1985. Light-driven uptake or pyruvate into mesophyll chloroplasts from maize. FEBS Lett. 183: 335—339. Fredeen, A.L., Gamon, J.A., & Field, C.B. 1991. Responses of photosynthesis and carbohydrate partitioning to

93 limitations in nitrogen and water availability in field grown sunflower. Plant Cell Environ. 14: 969—970. Galme´s, J., Flexas, J., Keys, A.J., Cifre, J., Mitchell, R.A.C., Madgwick, P.J., Haslam R.P., Medrano, H., & Parry, M.A.J. 2005. Rubisco specificity factor tends to be larger in plant species from drier habitats and in species with persistent leaves. Plant Cell Environ. 28: 571—579. Galme´s, J., Medrano, H., & Flexas, J. 2007. Photosynthetic limitations in response to water stress and recovery in Mediterranean plants with different growth forms. New Phytol. 175: 81—93. Genty, B., Briantais, J.-M., & Baker, N.R. 1989. The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 990: 87—92. Ghannoum, O., Evans, J.R., Chow, W.S., Andrews, T.J., Conroy, J.P., & Von Caemmerer, S. 2005. Faster Rubisco is the key to superior nitrogen-use efficiency in NADPmalic enzyme relative to NAD-Malic enzyme C4 grasses. Plant Physiol. 137: 638—650. Gillon, J.S. & Yakir, D. 2000. Internal conductance to CO2 diffusion and C18OO discrimination in C3 leaves. Plant Physiol. 123: 201—214. Gilmore, A.M. 1997. Mechanistic aspects of xanthophyll cycle-dependent photoprotection in higher plant chloroplasts and leaves. Physiol. Plant 99: 197—209. Goldschmidt, E.E. & Huber, S.C. 1992. Regulation of photosynthesis by end-product accumulation in leaves of plants storing starch, sucrose, and hexose sugars. Plant Physiol. 99: 1443—1448. Grace, J. 2004. Understanding and managing the global carbon cycle. J. Ecol. 92: 189—202. Grams, E.E., Koziolek, C., Lautner, S., Matyssek, R., & Fromm, J. 2007. Distinct roles of electric and hydraulic signals on the reaction of leaf gas exchange upon reirrigation in Zea mays L. Plant Cell Environ. 30: 79—84. Grassi, G. & Magnani, F. 2005. Stomatal, mesophyll conductance and biochemical limitations to photosynthesis as affected by drought and leaf ontogeny in ash and oak trees. Plant Cell Environ. 28: 834—849. Gunasekera, D. & Berkowitz, G.A. 1992. Heterogenous stomatal closure in response to leaf water deficits is not a universal phenomenon. Plant Physiol. 98: 660—665. Guy, R.D., Fogel, M.L., & Berry, J.A. 1993. Photosynthetic fractionation of the stable isotopes of oxygen and carbon. Plant Physiol. 101: 37—47. Hanson, H.C. 1917. Leaf structure as related to environment. Am. J. Bot. 4: 533—560. Harris, F.S. & Martin, C.E. 1991. Correlation between CAM-cycling and photosynthetic gas exchange in five species of (Talinum) (Portulacaceae) Plant Physiol. 96: 1118—1124. Hatch, M.D. & Carnal, N.W. 1992. The role of mitochondria in C4 photosynthesis. In: Molecular, biochemical and physiological aspects of plant respiration, H. Lambers & L.H.W. Van der Plas (eds.). SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp. 135—148. Hatch, M.D. & Slack, C.R. 1966. Photosynthesis by sugar cane leaves A new carboxylation reaction and

94

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

the pathway of sugar formation. Biochem. J. 101: 103—111. Hatch, M.D. & Slack, C.R. 1998. C4 photosynthesis: discovery, resolution, recognition, and significance. In: Discoveries in plant biology, S.-Y. Yang & S.-D. Kung (eds.). World Scientific Publishing, Hong Kong, pp. 175—196. Henderson, S.A., Von Caemmerer, S., & Farquhar, G.D. 1992. Short-term measurements of carbon isotope discrimination in several C4 species. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 19: 263—285. Henderson, S, Hattersley, P., Von Caemmerer, S & Osmond, C.B. 1995. Are C4 pathway plants threatened by global climatic change? In: Ecophysiology of photosynthesis, E.-D. Schulze & M.M. Caldwell (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 529—549. Hibberd, J.M. & Quick, W.P. 2002. Xharacteristics of C4 photosynthesis in stms and ptioes of C3 flowering plants. Nature 415: 451—454. Hikosaka, K., Ishikawa, K., Borjigidai, A., Muller, O., & Onoda, Y. 2006. Temperature acclimation of photosynthesis: mechanisms involved in the changes in temperature dependence of photosynthetic rate. J. Exp. Bot. 57: 291—302. Holbrook, N.M., Shashidhar, V.R., James, R.A., & Munns, R. 2002. Stomatal control in tomato with ABAdeficient roots: response of grafted plants to soil drying. J. Exp. Bot. 53: 1503—1514. Houghton, R.A. 2007. Balancing the global carbon budget. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 35: 313—347. Huang, Y., Street-Perrott, F.A., Metcalfe, S.E., Brenner, M., Moreland, M., Freeman, K.H. 2001. Climate change as the dominant control on glacial-interglacial variations in C3 and C4 plant abundance. Science 293: 1647—1651. Hubick, K. 1990. Effects of nitrogen source and water limitation on growth, transpiration efficiency and carbonisotope discrimination in peanut cultivars. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 17: 413—430. Hubick, K. & Farquhar, G.D. 1989. Carbon isotope discrimination and the ratio of carbon gained to water lost in barley cultivars. Plant Cell Environ. 12: 795—804. ¨ Huner, N.P.A., Oquist, G., & Sarhan, F. 1998. Energy balance and acclimation to light and cold. Trends Plant Sci. 3: 224—230. Hungate, B.A., Reichstein, M., Dijkstra, P., Johnson, D., Hymus, G., Tenhunen, J. D., Hinkle, C.R., & Drake, B.G. 2002. Evapotranspiration and soil water content in a scrub-oak woodland under carbon dioxide enrichment. Global Change Biol. 8: 289—298. Jahnke, S. & Pieruschka, R. 2006. Air pressure in clamp-on leaf chambers: a neglected issue in gas exchange measurements. J. Exp. Bot. 57: 2553—2561. Jones, P.G., Lloyd, J.C., & Raines, C.A. 1996. Glucose feeding of intact wheat plants represses the expression of a number of Calvin cycle genes. Plant Cell Environ. 19: 231—236. Jordan, D.B. & Ogren, W.L. 1981. The CO2/O2 specificity of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase. Planta 161: 308—313.

Kalisz, S. & Teeri, J.A. 1986. Population-level variation in photosynthetic metabolism and growth in Sedum wrightii. Ecology 67: 20—26. Kao, W.-Y. & Forseth, I.N. 1992. Diurnal leaf movement, chlorophyll fluorescence and carbon assimilation in soybean grown under different nitrogen and water availabilities. Plant Cell Environ. 15: 703—710. Keeley, J.E. 1990. Photosynthetic pathways in freshwater aquatic plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5: 330—333. Keeley, J.E. & Busch, G. 1984. Carbon assimilation characteristics of the aquatic CAM plant, Isoetes howellii. Plant Physiol. 76: 525—530. Keeley, J.E. & Rundel, P.W. 2005. Fire and the Miocene expansion of C4 grasslands. Ecol. Lett. 8: 683—690. Keeley, J.E. & Sandquist, D.R. 1992. Carbon: freshwater aquatics. Plant Cell Environ. 15: 1021—1035. Keeley, J.E., Osmond, C.B., & Raven, J.A. 1984. Stylites, a vascular land plant without stomata absorbs CO2 via its roots. Nature 310: 694—695. Kirschbaum, M.U.F. & Pearcy, R.W. 1988. Gas exchange analysis of the relative importance of stomatal and biochemical factors in photosynthetic induction in Alocasia macrorrhiza. Plant Physiol. 86: 782—785. Kluge, M. & Ting, I.P 1978. Crassulacean acid metabolism. Analysis of an ecological adaptation. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Koch, K.E. & Kennedy, R.A. 1982. Crassulacean acid metabolism in the succulent C4 dicot, Portulaca oleracea L. under natural environmental conditions. Plant Physiol. 69: 757—761. Korner, C. & Larcher, W. 1988. Plant life in cold climates. ¨ Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 42: 25—57. Krall, J.P. & Edwards, G.E. 1992. Relationship between photosystem II activity and CO2 fixation. Physiol. Plant 86: 180—187. Krall, J.P., Edwards, G.E. and Andrea, C.S. 1989. Protection of pyruvate, Pi dikinase from maize against cold lability by compatible solutes. Plant Physiol. 89: 280—285. Krause, G.H. & Weis, E. 1991. Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: The basics. Annu Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 42: 313—349. Kropf, M. 1989. Quantification of SO2 effects on physiological processes, plant growth and crop production. PhD Thesis, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands. Ku¨lheim, C., Agren, J., & Jansson, S. 2002. Rapid regulation of light harvesting and plant fitness in the field. Science 297: 91—93. Lake, J.A., Quick, W.P., Beerling, D.J., & Woodward, F.I. 2001. Plant development. Signals from mature to new leaves. Nature 411: 154. Lawlor, D.W. 1993. Photosynthesis; molecular, physiological and environmental processes. Longman, London. Leverenz, J.W. 1987. Chlorophyll content and the light response curve of shade adapted conifer needles. Physiol. Plant 71: 20—29. Li, X.-P., Phippard, A., Pasari, J., & Niyogi, K.K. 2002. Structure-function analysis of photosystem II subunit S (PsbS) in vivo. Funct. Plant Biol. 29: 1131—1139.

References Lichtenthaler, H.K. 2007. Biosynthesis, accumulation and emission of carotenoids, -tocopherol, plastoquinone, and isoprene in leaves under high photosynthetic irradiance. Photosynth. Res. 92: 163—179. Lichtenthaler, H.K. & Babani, F. 2004. Light adaptation and senescence of the photosynthetic apparatus. Changes in pigment composition, chlorophyll fluorescence parameters and photosynthetic activity. In: Chlorophyll fluorescence: a signature of photosynthesis, G.C. Papageorgiou & Govindjee (eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 713—736. Logan, B.A., Barker, D.H., Demmig-Adams, B., & Adams III, W.W. 1996. Acclimation of leaf carotenoid composition and ascorbate levels to gradients in the light environment within an Australian rainforest. Plant Cell Environ. 19: 1083—1090. Long, S.P. & Bernacchi, C.J. 2003. Gas exchange measurements, what can they tell us about the underlying limitations to photosynthesis? Procedures and sources of error. J. Exp. Bot. 54: 2393—2401. Long, S.P. & Ha¨llgren, J.E. 1993. Measurement of CO2 assimilation by plants in the field and the laboratory. In: Photosynthesis and production in a changing environment, D.O. Hall, J.M.O. Scurlock, H.R. Bolha`r-Nordenkampf, R.C. Leegood, & S.P. Long (eds.). Chapman and Hall, London, pp. 129—167. Long, S.P., Humphries, S., & Falkowski, P.G. 1994. Photoinhibition of photosynthesis in nature. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 45: 633—662. Long, S.P., Ainsworth, E.A., Rogers, A., & Ort, D.R. 2004. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide: plants FACE the future. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 55: 591—628. Maberly, S.C. & Madsen, T.V. 2002. Freshwater angiosperm carbon concentrating mechanisms: processes and patterns. Funct. Plant Biol. 29: 393—405. Madsen, T.V. & Baattrup-Pedersen, A. 1995. Regulation of growth and photosynthetic performance in Elodea canadensis in response to inorganic nitrogen. Funct. Ecol. 9: 239—247. Magnin, N.C., Cooley, B.A., Reiskind, J.B., & Bowes, G. 1997. Regulation and localization of key enzymes during the induction of Kranz-less, C4-type in Hydrilla verticillata. Plant Physiol. 115: 1681—1689. Martin, B., Tauer, C.G., Lin, R.K. 1999. Carbon isotope discrimination as a tool to improve water-use efficiency in tomato. Crop Sci. 39: 1775—1783. Mazen, A.M.A. 1996. Changes in levels of phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase with induction of Crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM)-like behavior in the C4 plant Portulaca oleracea. Physiol. Plant. 98: 111—116. McConnaughey, T.A., LaBaugh, J.W., Rosenberry, D.O., Striegl, R.G., Reddy, M.M., & Schuster, P.F. 1994. Carbon budget for a groundwater-fed lake: calcification supports summer photosynthesis. Limnol. Oceanogr. 39: 1319—1332. Medina, E. 1996. CAM and C4 plants in the humid tropics. In: Tropical forest plant ecophysiology, S.D. Mulkey, R. L. Chazdon, & A.P. Smith (eds.). Chapman & Hall, New York, pp. 56—88. Mommer, L., Pons, T.L., Wolters-Arts, M., Venema, J.H., & Visser, E.J.W. 2005. Submergence-induced morphological,

95 anatomical, and biochemical responses in a terrestrial species affect gas diffusion resistance and photosynthetic performance. Plant Physiol. 139: 497—508. ¨ ber den Lichtfaktor in den Monsi, M. & Saeki T. 1953. U Pflanzengesellschaften und sein Bedeutung fu¨r die Stoffproduktion. Jap. J. Bot. 14: 22—52. Monsi, M. & Saeki T. 2005. On the factor light in plant communities and its importance for matter production. Ann. Bot. 95: 549—567. Mooney, H.A. 1986. Photosynthesis. In: Plant ecology, M.J. Crawley (ed.). Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. pp. 345—373. Morgan, C.L., Turner, S.R., & Rawsthorne, S. 1992. Cellspecific distribution of glycine decarboxylase in leaves of C3, C4 and C3—C4 intermediate species. In: Molecular, biochemical and physiological aspects of plant respiration, H. Lambers & L.H.W. Van der Plas (eds.). SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp. 339—343. Morgan, P.B., Ainsworth, E.A., & Long, S.P. 2003. How does elevated ozone impact soybean? A meta-analysis of photosynthesis, growth and yield. Plant Cell Environ. 26: 1317—1328. Mott, K.A. & Buckley, T.N. 2000. Patchy stomatal conductance: emergent collective behaviour of stomata. Trends Plant Sci. 5: 1380—1385. Murchie, E.H. & Horton, P. 1997. Acclimation of photosynthesis to irradiance and spectral quality in British plant species: chlorophyll content, photosynthetic capacity and habitat preference. Plant Cell Environ. 20: 438—448. Newman, J.R. & Raven, J.R. 1993. Carbonic anhydrase in Ranunculus penicillatus spp. pseudofluitans: activity, location and implications for carbon assimilation. Plant Cell Environ. 16: 491—500. Nielsen, S.L., Gacia, E., & Sand-Jensen, K. 1991. Land plants or amphibious Littorella uniflora (L.) Aschers. maintain utilization of CO2 from sediment. Oecologia 88: 258—262. ¨ . 2007. Photosynthesis and resource distribuNiinemets, U tion through plant canopies. Plant Cell. Environ. 30: 1052—1071. Nimmo, H.G., Fontaine, V., Hartwell, J., Jenkins, G.I., Nimmo, G.A., & Wilkins, M.B. 2001. PEP carboxylase kinase is a novel protein kinase controlled at the level of expression. New Phytol. 151: 91—97. Nishiyama, Y., Allakhverdiev, S.I., & Murata, N. 2006. A new paradigm for the action of reactive oxygen species in the photoinhibition of photosystem II. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1757: 742—749. Nishio, J.N., Sun, J., & Vogelmann, T.C. 1993. Carbon fixation gradients across spinach leaves do not follow internal light gradients. Plant Cell 5: 953—961. Niyogi, K., Grossman, A.R., & Bjorkman, O. 1998. Arabi¨ dopsis mutants define a central role for the xanthophyll cycle in the regulation of photosynthetic energy conversion. Plant Cell 10: 1121—1134. Nobel, P.S. & Hartsock, T.L. 1990. Diel patterns of CO2 exchange for epiphytic cacti differing in succulence. Physiol. Plant 78: 628—634.

96

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

Nobel, P.S., Garcia-Moya, E., & Quero, E. 1992. High annual productivity of certain agaves and cacti under cultivation. Plant Cell Environ. 15: 329—335. Norby, R.J., Wullschleger, S.D., Gunderson, C.A., Johnson, D.W., & Ceulemans, R. 1999. Tree responses to rising CO2 in field experiments: implications for the future forest. Plant Cell Environ. 22: 683—714. ¨ Ogren, E. 1993. Convexity of the photosynthetic lightresponse curve in relation to intensity and direction of light during growth. Plant Physiol. 101: 1013—1019. Ogren, W.L. 1984. Photorespiration: pathways, regulation, and modification. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 35: 415—442. Oguchi, R., Hikosaka, K., & Hirose, T. 2005. Leaf anatomy as a constraint for photosynthetic acclimation: differential responses in leaf anatomy to increasing growth irradiance among three deciduous trees. Plant Cell Environ. 28: 916—927. O’Leary M.H. 1993. Biochemical basis of carbon isotope fractionation. In: Stable isotopes and plant carbonwater relations, J.R. Ehleringer, A.E. Hall, & G.D. Farquhar (eds.). Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 19—28. ¨ Oquist, G., Brunes, L., & Ha¨llgren, J.E. 1982. Photosynthetic efficiency of Betula pendula acclimated to different quantum flux densities. Plant Cell Environ. 5: 9—15. Osmond, C.B. 1994. What is photoinhibition? Some insights from comparisons of shade and sun plants. In: Photoinhibition of photosynthesis from molecular mechanisms to the field, N.R. Baker & J.R. Bowyer (eds.). Bios Scientific Publishers, Oxford, pp. 1—24. Osmond, C.B. & Holtum, J.A.M. 1981. Crassulacean acid metabolism. In: The biochemistry of plants. A comprehensive treatise, Vol 8, P.K. Stumpf & E.E. Conn (eds.). Academic Press, New York, pp. 283—328. Osmond, C.B., Winter, K., & Ziegler, H. 1982. Functional significance of different pathways or CO2 fixation in photosynthesis. In: Encyclopedia or plant physiology, Vol. 12B, O.L. Lange, P.S. Nobel, C.B. Osmond, & H. Ziegler (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 479—548. Pascal, A.A., Liu, Z.F., Broess, K., Van Oort, B., Van Amerongen, H., Wang, C., Horton, P., Robert, B., Chang, W.R., & Ruban, A. 2005. Molecular basis of photoprotection and control of photosynthetic light-harvesting. Nature 436: 134—137. Patel, A. & Ting, I.P. 1987. Relationship between respiration and CAM-cycling in Peperomia camptotricha. Plant Physiol. 84: 640—642. Paul, M.J. & Foyer, C.H. 2001. Sink regulation of photosynthesis. J. Exp. Bot. 52: 1383—1400. Pearcy, R.W. 1977. Acclimation of photosynthetic and respiratory carbon dioxide exchange to growth temperature in Atriplex lentiformis (Torr.) Wats. Plant Physiol. 59: 795—799. Pearcy, R.W. 1988. Photosynthetic utilisation of lightflecks by understorey plants. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 15: 223—238. Pearcy, R.W. 1990. Sunflecks and photosynthesis in plant canopies. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 41: 421—453. Plaut, Z., Mayoral, M.L., & Reinhold, L. 1987. Effect of altered sink:source ratio on photosynthetic metabolism of source leaves. Plant Physiol. 85: 786—791.

Pons, T.L. & Pearcy, R.W. 1992. Photosynthesis in flashing light in soybean leaves grown in different conditions. II. Lightfleck utilization efficiency. Plant Cell Environ. 15: 577—584. Pons, T.L. & Pearcy, R.W. 1994. Nitrogen reallocation and photosynthetic acclimation in response to partial shading in soybean plants. Physiol. Plant. 92: 636—644. Pons, T.L. & Welschen, R.A.M. 2002. Overestimation of respiration rates in commercially available clamp-on leaf chambers. Complications with measurement of net photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 25: 1367—1372. Pons, T.L., Van der Werf, A., & Lambers, H. 1994. Photosynthetic nitrogen use efficiency of inherently slow and fast-growing species: possible explanations for observed differences. In: A whole-plant perspective of carbonnitrogen interactions, J. Roy & E. Garnier (eds.). SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague, pp. 61—77. Poot, P., Pilon, J., & Pons, T.L. 1996. Photosynthetic characteristics of leaves of male sterile and hermaphroditic sex types of Plantago lanceolata grown under conditions of contrasting nitrogen and light availabilities. Physiol. Plant. 98: 780—790. Portis, A. 2003. Rubisco activase — Rubisco’s catalytic chaperone. Photosynth. Res. 75: 11—27. Portis, A.R., Salvucci, M.E., & Ogren, W.L. 1986. Activation of ribulosebisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase at physiological CO2 and ribulosebisphosphate concentrations by Rubisco activase. Plant Physiol. 82: 967—971. Prins, H.B.A. & Elzenga, J.T.M. 1989. Bicarbonate utilization: function and mechanism. Aquat. Bot. 34: 59—83. Pyankov, V.I. & Kondratchuk, A.V. 1995. Specific features of structural organization of photosynthetic apparatus of the East Pamirs plants. Proc. Russ. Acad. Sci. 344: 712—716. Pyankov, V.I. & Kondratchuk, A.V. 1998. Structure of the photosynthetic apparatus in woody plants from different ecological and altitudinal in Eastern Pamir. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 45: 567—578. Prins, H.B.A. & de Guia, M.B. 1986. Carbon source of the water soldier, Stratiotes aloides L. Aquat. Bot. 26: 225—234. Raymo, M.E. & Ruddiman, W.F. 1992. Tectonic forcing of late Cenozoic climate. Nature 359: 117—122. Reich, P.B. & Schoettle, A.W. 1988. Role of phosphorus and nitrogen in photosynthetic and whole plant carbon gain and nutrient use efficiency in eastern white pine. Oecologia 77: 25—33. Reich, P.B., Walters, M.B., & Ellsworth, D.S. 1997. From tropics to tundra: Global convergence in plant functioning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 13730—13734. Reinfelder, J.R., Kraepiel, A.M.L., & Morel, F.M.M. 2000. Unicellular C-4 photosynthesis in a marine diatom. Nature 407: 996—999. Reiskind, J.B., Madsen, T.V., Van Ginkel, L.C., & Bowes, G. 1997. Evidence that inducible C4-type photosynthesis is a chloroplastic CO2-concentrating mechanism in Hydrilla, a submersed monocot. Plant Cell Environ. 20: 211—220. ¨ . & Cescatti, A. 2007. Major Rodeghiero, M., Niinemets, U diffusion leaks of clamp-on leaf cuvettes still unaccounted: how erroneous are the estimates of Farquhar

References et al. model parameters? Plant Cell Environ. 30: 1006—1022. Rogers, A., Fischer, B.U., Bryant, J., Frehner, M., Blum, H., Raines, C.A., & Long, S.P. 1998. Acclimation of photosynthesis to elevated CO2 under low-nitrogen nutrition is affected by the capacity for assimilate utilization. Perennial ryegrass under free-air CO2enrichment. Plant Physiol. 118: 683—689. Rolland, F., Moore, B., & Sheen, J. 2002. Sugar sensing and signaling in plants. Plant Cell 14: S185—S205. Rolland, F., Baena-Gonzalez, E., & Sheen, J. 2006. Sugar sensing and signaling in plants: Conserved and novel mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 57: 675—709. Ru¨hle, W. & Wild, A. 1979. Measurements of cytochrome f and P-700 in intact leaves of Sinapis alba grown under high-light and low-light conditions. Planta 146: 377—385. Rundel, P.W. & Sharifi, M.R. 1993. Carbon isotope discrimination and resource availability in the desert shrub Larrea tridentata. In: Stable isotopes and plant carbon-water relations, J.R. Ehleringer, A.E. Hall, & G.D. Farquhar (eds.). Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 173—185. Sage, R.F. 2002. C-4 photosynthesis in terrestrial plants does not require Kranz anatomy. Trends Plant Sci. 7: 283—285. Sage, R.F. 2004. The evolution of C4 photosynthesis. New Phytol. 161: 341—370. Sage, R.F. & Kubien, D. 2003. Quo vadis C4? An ecophysiological perspective on global change and the future of C4 plants. Photosynth. Res.77: 209—225. Sage, R.F. & Sharkey, T.D. 1987. The effect of temperature on the occurrence of O2 and CO2 insensitive photosynthesis in field grown plants. Plant Physiol. 84: 658—664. Sage, R.F. & Pearcy, R.W. 1987a. The nitrogen use efficiency or C3 and C4 plants. I. Leaf nitrogen, growth, and biomass partitioning in Chenopodium album (L.) and Amaranthus retroflexus. Plant Physiol. 84: 954—958. Sage, R.F. & Pearcy, R.W. 1987b. The nitrogen use efficiency or C3 and C4 plants. II. Leaf nitrogen effects on the gas exchange characteristics or Chenopodium album (L.) and Amaranthus retroflexus. Plant Physiol. 84: 959—963. Salvucci, M.E. 1989. Regulation of Rubisco activity in vivo. Physiol. Plant. 77: 164—171. Salvucci, M.E. & Crafts-Brandner, S.J. 2004a. Mechanism for deactivation of Rubisco under moderate heat stress. Physiol. Plant. 122: 513—519. Salvucci, M.E. & Crafts-Brandner, S.J. 2004b. Relationship between the heat tolerance of photosynthesis and the thermal stability of Rubisco activase in plants from contrasting thermal environments. Plant Physiol. 134: 1460—1470. Sassenrath-Cole, G.F., Pearcy, R.W., & Steinmaus, S. 1994. The role of enzyme activation state in limiting carbon assimilation under variable light conditions. Photosynth. Res. 41: 295—302. Schreiber, U, Bilger, W., & Neubauer, C. 1995. Chlorophyll fluorescence as a non-intrusive indicator for rapid assessment of in vivo photosynthesis. In: Ecophysiology of photosynthesis, E.-D. Schulze & M.M. Caldwell (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 49—70.

97 Schulze, E.-D., Kelliher, F.M., Korner, C., Lloyd, J., & Leun¨ ing, R. 1994. Relationships among maximum stomatal conductance, ecosystem surface conductance, carbon assimilation rate, and plant nitrogen nutrition: A global ecology scaling exercise. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 25: 629—660. Sharkey, T.D. 2005. Effects of moderate heat stress on photosynthesis: importance of thylakoid reactions, Rubisco deactivation, reactive oxygen species, and thermotolerance provided by isoprene. Plant Cell Environ. 28: 269—277. Sharkey, T.D., Seemann, J.R., & Pearcy, R.W. 1986a. Contribution of metabolites of photosynthesis to postillumination CO2 assimilation in response to lightflecks. Plant Physiol. 82: 1063—1068. Sharkey, T.D., Stitt, M., Heineke, D., Gerhardt, R., Raschke, K., & Heldt, H.W. 1986b. Limitation of photosynthesis by carbon metabolism. II. CO2-insensitive CO2 uptake results from limitation of triose phosphate utilization. Plant Physiol. 81: 1123—1129. Sharkey, T.D., Bernacchi, C.J., Farquhar, G.D., & Singsaas, E.L. 2007. Fitting photosynthetic carbon dioxide response curves for C3 leaves. Plant Cell Environ. 30: 1035—1040. Sims, D.A. & Pearcy, R.W. 1989. Photosynthetic characteristics of a tropical forest understorey herb, Alocasia macrorrhiza, and a related crop species, Colocasia esculenta, grown in contrasting light environments. Oecologia 79: 53—59. Smedley, M.P., Dawson, T.E., Comstock, J.P., Donovan, L.A., Sherrill, D.E., Cook, C.S., & Ehleringer, J.R. 1991. Seasonal carbon isotope discrimination in a grassland community. Oecologia 85: 314—320. Smeekens, S. 2000. Sugar induced signal transduction in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 51: 49—81. Smeekens, S. & Rook, F. 1998. Sugar sensing and sugarmediated signal transduction in plants. Plant Physiol. 115: 7—13. Smith, H., Samson, G., & Fork, D.C. 1993. Photosynthetic acclimation to shade: Probing the role of phytochromes using photomorphogenetic mutants of tomato. Plant Cell Environ. 16: 929—937. Staiger, C.J., Gibbon, B.C., Kovar, D.R., & Zonia, L.E. 1997. Profilin and actin-depolymerizing facor: Modulators of actin organization in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2: 275—281. Sternberg, L.O., DeNiro, M.J., & Johnson, H.B. 1984. Isotope ratios of cellulose from plants having different photosynthetic pathways. Plant Physiol. 74: 557—561. Stitt, M. & Hurry, V. 2002. A plant for all seasons: alterations in photosynthetic carbon metabolism during cold acclimation in Arabidopsis. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 5: 199—206. Surridge, C. 2002. Agricultural biotech: the rice squad. Nature 416: 576—578. Tans, P. 2007. NOAA/ESRL (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ ccgg/trends). Terashima, I. & Hikosaka, K. 1995. Comparative ecophysiology of leaf and canopy photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 18: 1111—1128. Terashima, I., Wong, S.C., Osmond, C.B., & Farquhar, G.D. 1988. Characterisation of non-uniform photosynthesis

98

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

induced by abscisic acid in leaves having different mesophyll anatomies. Plant Cell Physiol. 29: 385—394. Terashima, I., Miyazawa, S.-I., & Hanba, Y.T. 2001. Why are sun leaves thicker than shade leaves? — Consideration based on analyses of CO2 diffusion in the leaf. J. Plant Res. 114: 93—105. Terashima, I., Hanba, Y.T., Tazoe, Y., Vyas, P., & Yano, S. 2006. Irradiance and phenotype: comparative eco-development of sun and shade leaves in relation to photosynthetic CO2 diffusion. J. Exp. Bot. 57: 343—354. Ueno, O. 2001. Environmental regulation of C3 and C4 differentiation in the amphibious sedge Eleocharis vivipara. Plant Physiol. 127: 1524—1532. Ueno, O., Samejima, M., Muto, S., Miyachi, S. 1988. Photosynthetic characteristics of an amphibious plant, Eleocharis vivipara: expression of C4 and C3 modes in contrasting environments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85: 6733—6737. Van Oosten, J.-J. & Besford, R.T. 1995. Some relationships between the gas exchange, biochemistry and molecular biology of photosynthesis during leaf development of tomato plants after transfer to different carbon dioxide concentrations. Plant Cell Environ. 18: 1253—1266. Van Oosten, J.J., Wilkins, D., & Besford, R.T. 1995. Acclimation of tomato to different carbon dioxide concentrations. Relationships between biochemistry and gas exchange during leaf development. New Phytol. 130: 357—367. Vernon, D.M., Ostrem, J.A., Schmitt, J.M., & Bohnert, H. 1988. PEPCase transcript levels in Mesembryanthemum crystallinum decline rapidly upon relief from salt stress. Plant Physiol. 86: 1002—1004. Vogel, J.C., Fuls, A., & Ellis, R.P. 1978. The geographical distribution of Kranz grasses in South Africa. S. Afr. J. Sci. 74: 209—215. Vogelmann, T.C. 1993. Plant tissue optics. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 44: 231—251. Vogelmann, T.C. & Evans, J.R. 2002. Profiles of light absorption and chlorophyll within spinach leaves from chlorophyll fluorescence. Plant Cell Environ. 25: 1313—1323. Vogelmann, T.C., Nishio, J.N., & Smith, W.K. 1996. Leaves and light capture: Light propagation and gradients of carbon fixation within leaves. Trends Plant Sci. 1: 65—70. Von Caemmerer, S. 1989. A model of photosynthetic CO2 assimilation and carbon-isotope discrimination in leaves of certain C3—C4 intermediates. Planta 178: 463—474. Von Caemmerer, S. 2000. Biochemical models of leaf photosynthesis. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Von Caemmerer, S. & Farquhar, G.D. 1981. Some relationships between biochemistry of photosynthesis and gas exchange of leaves. Planta 153: 376—387. Wakabayashi, K. & Boger, P. 2002. Target sites for herbi¨ cides: entering the 21st century. Pest Manage. Sci. 58: 1149—1154. Walters, R.G. 2005. Towards an understanding of photosynthetic acclimation. J. Exp. Bot. 56: 435—447. Walters, R.G., Rogers, J.J.M., Shephard, F., & Horton, P. 1999. Acclimation of Arabidopsis thaliana to the light environment: the role of photoreceptors. Planta 209: 517—527. Wand, S.J.E., Midgley, G.F., Jones, M.H., & Curtis, P.S. 1999. Responses of wild C4 and C3 grass (Poaceae) species to

elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration: a meta-analytic test of current theories and perceptions. Global Change Biol. 5: 723—741. Warren, C.R. 2007. Stand aside stomata, another actor deserves centre stage: the forgotten role of the internal conductance to CO2 transfer. J. Exp. Bot. 59: 1475—1487. Warren, C.R. & Adams, M.A. 2006. Internal conductance does not scale with photosynthetic capacity: implications for carbon isotope discrimination and the economics of water and nitrogen use in photosynthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 29: 192—201. Warren, C.R., Low, M., Matysek, R., & Tausz, M. 2007. Internal conductance to CO2transfer of adult Fagus sylvatica: variation between sun and shade leaves and due to free-air ozone fumigation. Environ. Exp. Bot. 59: 130—138. Weger, H.G., Silim, S.N., & Guy, R.D. 1993. Photosynthetic acclimation to low temperature by western red cedar seedlings. Plant Cell Environ. 16: 711—717. Weston, D.J., Bauerle, W.L., Swire-Clark, G.A., Moore, Bd., & Baird, W.V. 2007. Characterization of Rubisco activase from thermally contrasting genotypes of Acer rubrum (Aceraceae). Am. J. Bot. 94: 926—934. Winter, K. & Smith, J.A.C. 1996. An introduction to crassulaceaen acid metabolism. Biochemical principles and ecological diversity. In: Crassulacean acid metabolism, biochemistry, ecophysiology and evolution. Ecological studies 114, K. Winter & J.A.C. Smith (eds.). SpringerVerlag, Berlin, pp. 1—13. Winter, K., Zotz, G., Baur, B., & Dietz, K.-J. 1992. Light and dark CO2 fixation in Clusia uvitana and the effects of plant water status and CO2 availability. Oecologia 91: 47—51. Wright, G.C., Hubick,.K.T., & Farquhar, G.D. 1988. Discrimination in carbon isotopes of leaves correlates with water-use efficiency of field-grown peanut cultivars. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 15: 815—825. Wright, I.J., Reich, P.B., & Westoby, M. 2001. Strategy shifts in leaf physiology, structure and nutrient content between species of high- and low-rainfall and highand low-nutrient habitats. Funct. Ecol. 15: 423—434. Wright, I.J., Reich, P.B., Westoby, M., Ackerly, D.D., Baruch, Z., Bongers, F., Cavender-Bares, J., Chapin, T., Cornelissen, J.H.C., Diemer, M., Flexas, J., Garnier, E., Groom, P. K., Gulias, J., Hikosaka, K., Lamont, B.B., Lee, T., Lee, W., ¨ ., Lusk, C., Midgley, J.J., Navas, M.-L., Niinemets, U Oleksyn, J., Osada, N., Poorter, H., Poot, P., Prior, L., Pyankov, V.I., Roumet, C., Thomas, S.C., Tjoelker, M.G., Veneklaas, E.J., & Villar, R. 2004. The worldwide leaf economics spectrum. Nature 428: 821—827. Wu, M.-.X & Wedding, R.T. 1987. Temperature effects on phosphoenolpyruvate carboxylase from a CAM and a C4 plant: a comparative study. Plant Physiol. 85: 497—501. Wullschleger, S.D. Tschaplinski, T.J., & Norby, R.J. 2002. Plant water relations at elevated CO2 — implications for water-limited environments. Plant Cell Environ. 25: 319—331. Yamori, W., Noguchi, K., & Terashima, I. 2005. Temperature acclimation of photosynthesis in spinach leaves: analyses of photosynthetic components and temperature dependencies of photosynthetic partial reactions. Plant Cell Environ. 28: 536—547.

References Yamori, W., Noguchi, K., Hanba, Y.T., & Terashima, I. 2006a. Effects of internal conductance on the temperature dependence of the photosynthetic rate in spinach leaves from contrasting growth temperatures. Plant Cell Physiol. 47: 1069—1080. Yamori, W., Suzuki, K., Noguchi, K., Nakai, M., & Terashima, I. 2006b. Effects of Rubisco kinetics and Rubisco activation state on the temperature dependence of the photosynthetic rate in spinach leaves

99 from contrasting growth temperatures. Plant Cell Environ. 29: 1659—1670. Yano, S. & Terashima, I. 2001. Separate localization of light signal perception for sun or shade type chloroplast and palisade tissue differentiation on Chenopodium album. Plant Cell Physiol. 41: 1303—1310. Yeoh, H.-H., Badger, M.R., & Watson, L. 1981. Variations in kinetic properties of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase among plants. Plant Physiol. 67: 1151—1155.

Chapter 2 Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

2B.

Respiration

1. Introduction A large portion of the carbohydrates that a plant assimilates each day are expended in respiration in the same period (Table 1). If we seek to explain the carbon balance of a plant and to understand plant performance and growth in different environments, it is imperative to obtain a good understanding of respiration. Dark respiration is needed to produce the energy and carbon skeletons to sustain plant growth; however, a significant part of respiration may proceed via a nonphosphorylating pathway that is cyanide resistant and generates less ATP than the cytochrome pathway, which is the primary energy-producing pathway in both plants and animals. We present several hypotheses in this chapter to explore why plants have a respiratory pathway that is not linked to ATP production. The types and rates of plant respiration are controlled by a combination of respiratory capacity, energy demand, substrate availability, and oxygen supply (Covey-Crump et al. 2002, 2007). At low levels of O2, respiration cannot proceed by normal aerobic pathways, and fermentation starts to take place, with ethanol and lactate as major end-products. The ATP yield of fermentation is considerably less than that of normal aerobic respiration. In this chapter, we discuss the control over respiratory processes, the demand for respiratory energy, and the significance of

respiration for the plant’s carbon balance, as these are influenced by species and environment.

2. General Characteristics of the Respiratory System 2.1 The Respiratory Quotient The respiratory pathways in plant tissues include glycolysis, which is located both in the cytosol and in the plastids, the oxidative pentose phosphate pathway, which is also located both in the plastids and the cytosol, the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) or Krebs cycle, in the matrix of mitochondria, and the electron-transport pathways, which reside in the inner mitochondrial membrane. The respiratory quotient (RQ, the ratio between the number of moles of CO2 released and that of O2 consumed) is a useful index of the types of substrates used in respiration and the subsequent use of respiratory energy to support biosynthesis. In the absence of biosynthetic processes, the RQ of respiration is expected to be 1.0, if sucrose is the only substrate for respiration and is fully oxidized to CO2 and H2O. When leaves of Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean) are exposed to an extended dark period or to high temperatures, their RQ declines, due to a shift from carbohydrates as the main substrate for

102

2. Photosynthesis, Respiration, and Long-Distance Transport

TABLE 1. Utilization of photosynthates in plants, as dependent on the nutrient supply.* Utilization of photosynthates % of C fixed

Item Shoot growth Root growth Shoot respiration Root respiration – Growth – Maintenance – Ion acquisition Volatile losses Exudation N2 fixation Mycorrhiza

Free nutrient availability

Limiting nutrient supply

40*–57 17–18* 17–24*

15–27* 33*–35 19–20*

8–19* 3.5–4.6* 0.6–2.6* –13* 0–8